The Death of Mods

D

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,550
The Gaben has grabbed a stick of butter, bent you over a table pushing down with all his weight, and while eating a jelly donut that is dripping on the small of your back, asks you.... "so, what do you think of the new Steam modding paywall, sweetcheeks?"

valvEA1-760x428.jpg


So, how do you reply?

https://www.change.org/p/valve-remove-the-paid-content-of-the-steam-workshop

The Gaben has seen that BTW, and posted on reddit that he basically doesn't give two shits, its just too lucrative to pass up, since its a nice 75% cut of all that new revenue (the modders get 25%). After all, Skyrim is selling for $5, and there are mods for Skyrim priced above that already...

Cliffs Notes: Mods are now going for pay on Steam, and that means that the way the modding community has functioned since its inception is over. Why? Because money changes things. Now you're going to have IP owners claiming third parties are making money off of their games by modding it, and making many publisher's games off limits for modding. You also can't just take a $2 mod and host it somewhere else for free, because its now behind a paywall. And previously, the community worked like creating a multi-layer burrito. One guy would mod hairstyles, another would grab that and expand on it by modding weapons, and another would add even more weapons to that, and then another would come along and combine it with a high-quality texture pack and so on, like a 7-layer burrito. But you can't just take someone's content they are selling for $5 and repackage it with yours anymore. And considering how the good mods are usually combo packages of dozens and dozens of mods, one often picked up and carried on by the next torch holder when a game gets an update or to fix compatibility issues with other popular mods and so forth, can you imagine what the total cost of most of the popular mods would be today if each modder is charging say $2 per mod? It'd cost more than the original game!

RIP PC gaming...
 
I was writing up a large post but deleted it. Slightly related and I'll get to the point. A few negatives of this development:

- Less variety due to "modders" focusing on what will sell the most if they plan on making paid for content.

- Less variety due to possible legal issues. For example, recreating other commercial IP items such as Star Wars themed content.

- Lots of bigger mods build upon other free mods even after some of the original modders/contributors stop modding years earlier. If this trend results in more payware then you'll likely see less larger mods combine good assets at later dates.
 
crusty_juggler said:
Take this malarkey back to Reddit.
Click to expand...

It's not literally the death of PC Gaming, but there is no denying that it is one more nail in the coffin for PC Gaming as it once was at its height, and it is not the last nail either - it will only get much worse from here.
 
Couldn't it also lead to higher quality, more stable mods?

I haven't been following the whole thing and don't really understand how it will affect me yet. Is this going to be targeted at a certain type of game? Single player games mostly?
 
Correct me i am wrong but hasn't Bethesda for example strictly prohibited making money with mods in their games? This shit steam is pulling is going to open so big can of worms that its not even funny. :/
 
Flogger23m said:
I was writing up a large post but deleted it. Slightly related and I'll get to the point. A few negatives of this development:

- Less variety due to "modders" focusing on what will sell the most if they plan on making paid for content.

- Less variety due to possible legal issues. For example, recreating other commercial IP items such as Star Wars themed content.

- Lots of bigger mods build upon other free mods even after some of the original modders/contributors stop modding years earlier. If this trend results in more payware then you'll likely see less larger mods combine good assets at later dates.
Click to expand...

Yes not every mods can be sold, for the reasons you mentioned. Doesn't mean no one will make these mods anymore. They will continue to be created and distributed for free, the way it is right now. No one is preventing mods from being distributed for free.

Therefore, there will still always be mods that uses other people's IP, and they will continue being distributed for free.


As for the first point, it really is no different than the entire gaming industry. Company make games that people want. If too many people make the same kind of games, then it becomes saturated and other dev/publisher will then seek out other content that people want, ensuring that everyone's demand is being fulfilled. This is where you get major Kickstarter games, Minecraft, Path of Exile, Star Citizen, etc. These games were created by dev who saw potential unfulfilled demands among the gaming community.

Even with mods being available for free, the same issue happens anyway. If too many people make the same mod, it becomes saturated and modders will have to seek out other demands that have yet to be fulfilled.
 
MaZa said:
Correct me i am wrong but hasn't Bethesda for example strictly prohibited making money with mods in their games? This shit steam is pulling is going to open so big can of worms that its not even funny. :/
Click to expand...

Bethesda is part of this program, and they are taking a cut too. They are legally allowing it.

And you can only sell mods for Skyrim on Steam. Not any other games. It is still illegal if the game owner do not explicitly allow and be a part of it, and so you still cannot sell their mods on Steam or elsewhere.

Steam isn't allowing people to sell mods for every games that uses it's Workshop. This is only for any game where the publisher wants to allow people to do so. And so at the moment, it is only Skyrim because Bethesda wants to do this. It is a collaboration between Valve and Bethesda, which is what makes it legal.
 
Last edited:
Having the option to spend $1 on a community made Skyrim sword is not the end of PC gaming and it's not a nail in the coffin of PC gaming. Get a grip.

When Valve starts giving you the option to spend $300 on a community made virtual knife, then we'll see the end of PC gaming. Oh wait, we've had that for two years and not a damn thing changed.

And guess what? All these people saying they're going to boycott this and boycott that, and spamming change.org petitions on forums all over the place? They're going to buy these mods and skins by the fucking boatload and Gabe's gonna make a killing - just like he did on sparkly hats and pink camo guns.
 
Hornet said:
Bethesda is part of this program, and they are taking a cut too. They are legally allowing it.

And you can only sell mods for Skyrim on Steam. Not any other games. It is still illegal if the game owner do not explicitly allow and be a part of it, and so you still cannot sell their mods on Steam or elsewhere.

Steam isn't allowing people to sell mods for every games that uses it's Workshop. This is only for any game where the publisher wants to allow people to do so. And so at the moment, it is only Skyrim because Bethesda wants to do this. It is a collaboration between Valve and Bethesda, which is what makes it legal.
Click to expand...

Oh, this was new to me and it changes few things. Still Im not really happy about this. Modding should about the fans and their love for the game, bringing money into the equation may be a very bad thing. We'll see what happens.
 
Get your mods so.eqhere other than steam ? Its not like it blocks mods from else where
 
So much wrong in your statements

Ducman69 said:
The Gaben has seen that BTW, and posted on reddit that he basically doesn't give two shits, its just too lucrative to pass up, since its a nice 75% cut of all that new revenue (the modders get 25%). After all, Skyrim is selling for $5, and there are mods for Skyrim priced above that already...
Click to expand...

And as was stated, Valve takes their standard 30%, like they do for everything, it was Bethesda that set the additional 45%

Ducman69 said:
Cliffs Notes: Mods are now going for pay on Steam,
Click to expand...

There were paid mods for certain games before this, they just had their own pages, this merely changes the way they are presented.

Ducman69 said:
and that means that the way the modding community has functioned since its inception is over. Why? Because money changes things.
Click to expand...

Not in the way you are implying. Free mods will still exist, Nexus will still exist, the only thing changing (and as I stated above, it's was already there) is modders can charge for their work on Steam.

Ducman69 said:
Now you're going to have IP owners claiming third parties are making money off of their games by modding it, and making many publisher's games off limits for modding.
Click to expand...

No, they won't, because the IP owners and publishers are part of the deal. They have to agree before Valve opens up the paid sections.

Ducman69 said:
You also can't just take a $2 mod and host it somewhere else for free, because its now behind a paywall.
Click to expand...

You cannot do that with free mods either. You aren't the owner of that work, if a free mod owner stated "It can only be hosted on site X", you aren't legally allowed to host it elsewhere

Ducman69 said:
And previously, the community worked like creating a multi-layer burrito. One guy would mod hairstyles, another would grab that and expand on it by modding weapons, and another would add even more weapons to that, and then another would come along and combine it with a high-quality texture pack and so on, like a 7-layer burrito.
Click to expand...

To quote a commercial "That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works". Dependencies are not a repackaging, they are a dependency.

Ducman69 said:
But you can't just take someone's content they are selling for $5 and repackage it with yours anymore. And considering how the good mods are usually combo packages of dozens and dozens of mods, one often picked up and carried on by the next torch holder when a game gets an update or to fix compatibility issues with other popular mods and so forth, can you imagine what the total cost of most of the popular mods would be today if each modder is charging say $2 per mod? It'd cost more than the original game!
Click to expand...

Again, you couldn't just include free mods in packs before either, you had to have permission. This does not change that.

Ducman69 said:
RIP PC gaming...
Click to expand...

PC gaming is, and will remain alive and well, the sky is not falling, and cats and dogs still hate each other.
 
It's a win-win for the consumer;

It pushes people toward console gaming, which benefits the consumer because console games can often be resold allowing the consumer to play the latest games for less (excluding multiplayer).

It pushes people to simply give up on gaming altogether, leaving more disposable income, and more disposable time available to the consumer.

Win-win.
 
Kihaji, give me a break. Free mods were generally written for usage that they are free to use, distribute, and further modify or package as long as it wasn't for commercial purposes. That's the entire culture of the modding community that Steam is about to irrevocably change. When you introduce money, people are going to get more careful and jealous with their work and fewer people are going to do anything just for kicks, and allow that sharing and community building upon foundations with collaborative work.

That is something that we are actually likely to see now, is a bunch of people running to the Steam store to sell free mods they claim as their own for a quick buck.

And with how often mods need to be updated or simply break as a game is patched down the road, its going to be pretty piss poor for users that actually invested in a mod, and then its useless and now have to buy a new updated mod by someone else (or the same guy again just making a quick buck).

That too is surely what is going to destroy the quality of modding, not improve it, as before you had a select group of dedicated people in the mod community working together as a hobby. Now you're going to see the same groups of Chinese cash+spam groups flooding tons of crappy mods on the market with ZERO quality-assurance oversight from Valve (they have verified they will not police in any fashion) to make a living off of that.

This idea too that you can simply go to Nexus or other such sites that have vowed to always keep mods free and never allow third party influence will go away as well, just see Nexus founder's comments and public discussion with Gabe on the issue. You do NOT OWN GAMES YOU BUY, so its not like a car. When you buy a car, its your car, so if you want to put a turbocharger on it, paint it orange, and put a firebreathing exhaust on it, you can, and you don't have to go to the dealership to get the mods done. But with today's laws you are only renting the ability to play a game that you buy, and so XYZ developers are likely to simply only allow modding through outlets for which they get a big percentage of the revenue, relegating sites like Nexus to the past.

And its not "well this may happen", as it has already happened with several of the most popular Skyrim mods pulled from Nexus and soley hosted on the Steam Workshop for $2-5, which oh yeah, a graphical glitch fix now costs as much as the actual game and actual content is up to $25 (although someone mentioned there was a $100 horse genitalia mod on the market).

This essentially relegates the once free modding community to an extra layer of DLC content, as if we weren't already paying enough for that as it is, and encouraging developers to release partial games in order to fill in gaps with DLC. Now, they are likely to not even worry about creating their own DLC, and instead will just say "well modders will handle that" and they get half the profits with zero risk.

And if this were really about supporting content creators, then they would allow for a simple no-cut "donate" button allowing you to directly and optionally support mods you felt like with whatever you felt like donating (or if they still have to have their pound of flesh even for free mods, then make it a 30% cut of donations giving the modders 70% instead of 25%).
crusty_juggler said:
All these people saying they're going to boycott this and boycott that, and spamming change.org petitions on forums all over the place? They're going to buy these mods and skins by the fucking boatload and Gabe's gonna make a killing - just like he did on sparkly hats and pink camo guns.
Click to expand...
No offense, but the far more likely outcome is that for every one of the people that boycott and create petitions and the like, there are users with attitudes that it seems you share that could give two craps and will throw their money at DLCs, pre-orders, and kickstarters and then complain about the sorry state of gaming.
 
What I find interesting about the complaints against this is there is an inherent assumption that this will succeed ... if the majority of gamers support the opposition to this then there is probably not enough money at play here for continued support and expansion ... if a large portion of gamers do support this then it was a feature they were wanting and it is not Valve killing PC Gaming but the gamers themselves

That said, the video gaming industry (particularly the PC gaming industry) has changed many times throughout its history and since its birth in the 1970's ... when we shifted away from Shareware and Demos I am sure that everyone thought that was the death of the PC Game ... when we shifted from physical games to digital everyone thought that was the death ... always on connections for gameplay (death) ... DLC (death) ... IAP (death) ... paid MMOs (death) ... etc, etc, etc

The gaming industry is constantly changing to adjust to market conditions and gamer demographics and new technologies ... they often try new ways to monetize the games (since they are a business and not a charity) ... some work and stay ... some fail and are abandoned ... some are flawed and are adjusted ...

paid mods will ultimately succeed or fail based on two factors ... will modders restrict their best content to paid mods only ... will the general population of PC Gamers be willing to buy mods ... Valve doesn't control either of those things ... it will be interesting to see how this plays out over time and whether it stays ... however, since DLC and IAP haven't killed PC gaming yet I don't think paid mods will either

There is one thing that could kill gaming and that is switching games to a subscription based license instead of a one time purchase (but I don't see the developers going there) ... short of that I think people will adjust to paid mods (if they survive) ... even with the success and hate of DLC there is not a universal use of it in all games ... paid mods are likely to be the same (some big companies will embrace it, because they can ... others will eschew it and find other ways to support their games)
 
The split seems greedy, content creators should receive 50% minimum. Also right now Steam customer service is almost non existent, sadly even EA has much better CS and even guarantee their games with the Origin 24hr guarantee. If a mod breaks your game down the road kiss that money goodbye, you will fare better getting a refund from a drug dealer going by Steams track record.
 
kbrickley said:
What I find interesting about the complaints against this is there is an inherent assumption that this will succeed ... if the majority of gamers support the opposition to this then there is probably not enough money at play here for continued support and expansion ... if a large portion of gamers do support this then it was a feature they were wanting and it is not Valve killing PC Gaming but the gamers themselves
Click to expand...
You're talking about something that literally created ZERO income for IP owners, and if anything may have taken from it in that people were enjoying older games longer instead of upgrading to the next incremental increase the IP owner released, to allowing IP owners to make some money, any money, by locking down and controlling mod distribution. If I'm in a business to make money, why would I ever now allow mods for the game you are "renting" from me (not buying) on anything other than Steam where I can get a 45% cut of flesh for nothing?

And if kickstarters and pay-to-win gaming has proven anything, its that there are also plenty of whales out there to fish for, when you have access to millions upon millions of people.

It doesn't matter if 995,000 out of a 1,000,000 people are pissed off as hell, if you're going from $0 to 5,000 people paying anywhere from a couple bucks here and there to some "whales" buying $100 mods left and right (look at the thousands of dollars some gamers have spent on World of Tanks or Star Citizen for example).

So mods/DLC will now end up being one and the same thing, where you have games like Train Simulator 2013 that sell for almost nothing but have $2408.91 of DLC.
 
Ticker305 said:
The split seems greedy, content creators should receive 50% minimum. Also right now Steam customer service is almost non existent, sadly even EA has much better CS and even guarantee their games with the Origin 24hr guarantee. If a mod breaks your game down the road kiss that money goodbye, you will fare better getting a refund from a drug dealer going by Steams track record.
Click to expand...

I am unclear about something ... everyone uses the mod breaking the game example ... wasn't this a potential issue even before ... so this wasn't an issue when the mod was free (mod breaks game ... c'est la vie ... download game again and start from scratch if it didn't have cloud save features) ... is the only concern that if you pay $2 for the mod that broke your game you need either support or a refund :confused:
 
Ducman69 said:
You're talking about something that literally created ZERO income for IP owners, and if anything may have taken from it in that people were enjoying older games longer instead of upgrading to the next incremental increase the IP owner released, to allowing IP owners to make some money, any money, by locking down and controlling mod distribution. If I'm in a business to make money, why would I ever now allow mods for the game you are "renting" from me (not buying) on anything other than Steam where I can get a 45% cut of flesh for nothing?

And if kickstarters and pay-to-win gaming has proven anything, its that there are also plenty of whales out there to fish for, when you have access to millions upon millions of people.

It doesn't matter if 995,000 out of a 1,000,000 people are pissed off as hell, if you're going from $0 to 5,000 people paying anywhere from a couple bucks here and there to some "whales" buying $100 mods left and right (look at the thousands of dollars some gamers have spent on World of Tanks or Star Citizen for example).

So mods/DLC will now end up being one and the same thing, where you have games like Train Simulator 2013 that sell for almost nothing but have $2408.91 of DLC.
Click to expand...

I wish people would leave Kickstarter out of these arguments ... I know there are people that dislike the model but it has fixed more problems than it has caused (in my opinion) ... I can understand people's opposition to DLC since you are sometimes literally forced to choose between paying for features that make the game more enjoyable or having to skip those features

The use of mods was always a choice and will remain a choice whether they are paid or free ... Kickstarter is even more of a choice (just like a preorder) ... no one is forced to put their money on KS and every KS game that has launched so far has been available to buy on the general market after launch (so no one was forced to support the KS or not have access to the game) ... if KS became some sort of walled garden where only the early supporters got to play a game I could see the opposition but as it is now, it just means that a class of users who are willing to donate their money to a developer are taking the place of the publisher or VC fund to fund the development ... I have yet to see a valid argument on why that is improper :confused:
 
Thuleman said:
It's a win-win for the consumer;

It pushes people toward console gaming, which benefits the consumer because console games can often be resold allowing the consumer to play the latest games for less (excluding multiplayer).

It pushes people to simply give up on gaming altogether, leaving more disposable income, and more disposable time available to the consumer.

Win-win.
Click to expand...

Um... this is not going to change anything in the grand scheme of things, people are just over reacting. We're talking about Skyrim, PC gaming isn't about Skyrim only. Hell even of Skyrim, modding will remain the same. People isn't going to stop getting free stuff.

I guess people missed the part that we're talking about an alternative way of distributing mods, for Skyrim only.

PC gaming is not going to die :eek:
 
kbrickley said:
I am unclear about something ... everyone uses the mod breaking the game example ... wasn't this a potential issue even before ... so this wasn't an issue when the mod was free (mod breaks game ... c'est la vie ... download game again and start from scratch if it didn't have cloud save features) ... is the only concern that if you pay $2 for the mod that broke your game you need either support or a refund :confused:
Click to expand...
You have a narrow window with which to request a refund, and absolutely zero requirement for support down the road.

So we are now likely to see Chinese entrepreneurs flood modding, soon to be limited to Steam for availability, using the same practices they did for mobile apps before they were policed (again Gabe has said they will literally do ZERO policing whatsoever) where they will have people all day just upvoting their mods so people will purchase them. Then if they break on the next update, you are likely past your trial window for a refund, and because again this is purely motivated by profit will release a Mod 2.0 again for $2, and so you buy that to replace the old one that doesn't work. And of course rather than the mod community working together to ensure that the popular mod you have doesn't conflict with another popular mod, you're instead motivated if anything to break other mods to encourage adoption of your own similar one that does work. After all, how are end users going to know that its your mod that broke another one, and will likely just be pissed at the creator of the now broken mod. Gabe is fine with you having to rebuy mods, because every time you get suckered out of more money, he's getting a slice of that action!

And before, when it was a dedicated mod community creating the mods for the betterment of the gaming community, for the greater good if you will as a hobby and potential resume builder to get hired on to a publisher, when a mod stopped working often you would simply have some other modder come along and update/fix the mod so it would work. This happened with many of my favorite Civilization mods where you saw in the notes "Thanks to XYZ for this mod, I've merely provided an update to work with Update 2.1.42"! along with all the mods that were packaged together as collaborative efforts, giving credit to all the pieces of that supreme pizza made available all in one click of a button for free with everything working together beautifully.
Hornet said:
I guess people missed the part that we're talking about an alternative way of distributing mods, for Skyrim only.
Click to expand...
Skyrim is the first; Steam intends to sell this new cash model to all major publishers, and I see no reason they would turn down free money.
 
Last edited:
Ducman69 said:
Skyrim is the first; Steam intends to sell this new cash model to all major publishers, and I see no reason they would turn down free money.
Click to expand...

I understand that there's nothing to stop other publishers from doing the same. ARMA, rFactor, etc may someday do the same, IF they want to do so.

But Valve cannot force them. Instead, the market will dictate the success or failure of this particular business model. If, despite the messy trial run with Skyrim, the result is such a huge success that the other companies begin to buy into this model, then can we say it is wrong for the industry to do so?

I don't think so, because at the end of the day, the industry does what the consumer wants. Others will only follow suit if there's money to be made, and if there's money to be made, then that's basically the majority of consumer saying they are fine with paying for mods.

At the end of the day, the consumers (and modders in this case) will decide whether this will be for Skyrim only, or for future titles too.
 
Hornet said:
Instead, the market will dictate the success or failure of this particular business model.
Click to expand...

Sounds so much more floury than saying it like it is. Yet another path to nickle and dimeing fans at every turn.

How little we learn from history. Look at smartphone apps. That market was so successful that developers gave up on one time purchases to nickle-and dime customers with subscription keys, as well as ads. The ones that stick to free, sell your info at every turn for money (like Tapatalk).


Modding going commercial is about the worst thing that can happen to something by-and-for enthusiasts.
 
Ducman69 said:
You have a narrow window with which to request a refund, and absolutely zero requirement for support down the road.

So we are now likely to see Chinese entrepreneurs flood modding, soon to be limited to Steam for availability, using the same practices they did for mobile apps before they were policed (again Gabe has said they will literally do ZERO policing whatsoever) where they will have people all day just upvoting their mods so people will purchase them. Then if they break on the next update, you are likely past your trial window for a refund, and because again this is purely motivated by profit will release a Mod 2.0 again for $2, and so you buy that to replace the old one that doesn't work. And of course rather than the mod community working together to ensure that the popular mod you have doesn't conflict with another popular mod, you're instead motivated if anything to break other mods to encourage adoption of your own similar one that does work. After all, how are end users going to know that its your mod that broke another one, and will likely just be pissed at the creator of the now broken mod. Gabe is fine with you having to rebuy mods, because every time you get suckered out of more money, he's getting a slice of that action!

And before, when it was a dedicated mod community creating the mods for the betterment of the gaming community, for the greater good if you will as a hobby and potential resume builder to get hired on to a publisher, when a mod stopped working often you would simply have some other modder come along and update/fix the mod so it would work. This happened with many of my favorite Civilization mods where you saw in the notes "Thanks to XYZ for this mod, I've merely provided an update to work with Update 2.1.42"! along with all the mods that were packaged together as collaborative efforts, giving credit to all the pieces of that supreme pizza made available all in one click of a button for free with everything working together beautifully.
Click to expand...

Okay ... I can see that but I still fail to see how paid mods kill PC gaming or modding ... the worst that happens is we return to the days before steam where mods were either through the user portals or scattered around the web ... games like Diablo II and Dungeon Siege never officially supported modding or their modders but there were plenty of mods for those games (including some completely new games created in the engine) ... modding is not threatened by this except for the companies like Bethesda that made modding easier, where they might return to the older unsupported modding models ... modding will survive it just might get a little harder to manage again ... and it will remain a PC only feature since only on the PC do you have access to the program files to search and replace files with new ones containing the mod
 
Hornet said:
Instead, the market will dictate the success or failure of this particular business model.
Click to expand...
Hence the backlash to ensure this doesn't become a new norm.
Hornet said:
If, despite the messy trial run with Skyrim, the result is such a huge success that the other companies begin to buy into this model, then can we say it is wrong for the industry to do so?

At the end of the day, the consumers (and modders in this case) will decide whether this will be for Skyrim only, or for future titles too.
Click to expand...
Except the old modding community is likely to be replaced with Chinese modding publishers, flooding the market and upvoting their content and using the same unethical practices they did before quality-assurance programs were put in on Apple/Google stores, something Valve has no intention of doing. So the modders of today are not likely to be the modders of tomorrow, especially when you're restricting the modders to publish mods only on Steam in this new marketplace that is locked down thanks to ridiculous IP laws where gamers don't own their games and so need permission to mod them.

And again, it doesn't matter if 99% of the gaming community is against this, if the model previously involved 100% paying nothing which just about everyone loved, to 1% paying for what is essentially just more DLC.

1% paying > 0% paying and money is money.

The only real backlash to make this unprofitable would be if people get pissed at Valve and the publishers enough to stop using their service, so that the cost of game revenues lost now exceeds the gain from DLC/mod revenues gained.
 
kbrickley said:
Okay ... I can see that but I still fail to see how paid mods kill PC gaming or modding ... the worst that happens is we return to the days before steam where mods were either through the user portals or scattered around the web ... d
Click to expand...

Actually odds are those other portals will probably get DMCA'd, if this is at all successful. No publisher with brains wanting $$ out of modding will license permission to mod to anyone not handing them wads of cash.
 
Skripka said:
Actually odds are those other portals will probably get DMCA'd, if this is at all successful. No publisher with brains wanting $$ out of modding will license permission to mod to anyone not handing them wads of cash.
Click to expand...

As long as no modder charges for their mod they are unlikely to draw the wrath of the DMCA ... if the Valve system succeeds it will end any other way to monetize mods but that is probably it (and since most people are arguing that modders should work for free there is no penalty there) ... but most companies don't care about mods that don't interfere with their business ... Blizzard is a fairly litigious company but I don't recall them going after all the D2 mods floating around out there (as long as you only mess with the single player game) ... and there are lots of bootleg WOW servers running as well (and they seem to ignore those unless they become mainstream and charge for access) ... as long as modders leave the money for the developers and publishers I don't think there will be an excessive DMCA reaction
 
kbrickley said:
but most companies don't care about mods that don't interfere with their business ... Blizzard is a fairly litigious company but I don't recall them going after all the D2 mods floating around out there (as long as you only mess with the single player game)
Click to expand...
If Blizzard end up signin with Steam for paid mods, then suddenly free mods for their games on Nexus and the like are competition and a loss of revenue. You can be sure at that point that DMCA notices will go out... hell if Nintendo can attack Youtubers for a few bucks, you can be sure that a team would be put in place to protect the modding revenue stream. Likewise, when Steam has exclusive rights for modding from a developer, they too may start sending out notices to shut down mods available for Steam distributed content.
 
Ducman69 said:
If Blizzard end up signin with Steam for paid mods, then suddenly free mods for their games on Nexus and the like are competition and a loss of revenue. You can be sure at that point that DMCA notices will go out... hell if Nintendo can attack Youtubers for a few bucks, you can be sure that a team would be put in place to protect the modding revenue stream. Likewise, when Steam has exclusive rights for modding from a developer, they too may start sending out notices to shut down mods available for Steam distributed content.
Click to expand...

DLC has been extraordinarily profitable for companies but we haven't seen it universally embraced by all developers ... I fail to see why everyone thinks that paid mods will be universally accepted
 
Ducman69 said:
Hence the backlash to ensure this doesn't become a new norm.

Except the old modding community is likely to be replaced with Chinese modding publishers, flooding the market and upvoting their content and using the same unethical practices they did before quality-assurance programs were put in on Apple/Google stores, something Valve has no intention of doing. So the modders of today are not likely to be the modders of tomorrow, especially when you're restricting the modders to publish mods only on Steam in this new marketplace that is locked down thanks to ridiculous IP laws where gamers don't own their games and so need permission to mod them.

And again, it doesn't matter if 99% of the gaming community is against this, if the model previously involved 100% paying nothing which just about everyone loved, to 1% paying for what is essentially just more DLC.

1% paying > 0% paying and money is money.

The only real backlash to make this unprofitable would be if people get pissed at Valve and the publishers enough to stop using their service, so that the cost of game revenues lost now exceeds the gain from DLC/mod revenues gained.
Click to expand...

In a way, that's kind of what I meant about the market deciding whether it is a success or not.

Lets take the new Unreal Tournament for example. They are building a game around the concept of selling user-created content. These content will be distributed through a marketplace Epic creates, which is similar to what you mention there about mod distribution through a controlled marketplace.

For this to be a success, obviously this concept of selling user created mods has to be profitable. Not just by having 1% of the player base buying stuff, that obviously isn't going to cover the cost let alone generate profits. Therefore if it is a success, that means a majority of its player base are ok with purchasing mods.

As you say, the people who are against this idea will not participate in this, they will not buy the game or anything. They have their own reasons why they disagree, it doesn't matter what it is. The point is, if these people who are "boycotting" the game are a majority of the consumers, then this project would have failed, and Epic would no longer use this model in the future. However, if they are only a minority, and the majority group are those who are ok with the model, then this project is going to be a commercial success.

Of course you may say Epic will not prevent free mods in their marketplace, that could be what Bethesda do in the future, but that decision still comes down to what these company believe will be accepted by the majority.


At the end of the day, for every business model, DLC, F2P, etc. there will always be 2 group of consumers, those who agrees to it, and those who don't. We cannot say who's right and who's wrong, everyone is free to spend however they wishes to. The industry will tend to cater to the majority, of course. And my point is, we will see the same thing here.

Whatever Valve/Bethesda can or cannot do, will depend on the majority approach of their consumer. I understand that you are arguing from the side of those who disagree, but we cannot ignore the fact that there are those who agree to it, and Valve/Bethesda have every rights to chose who they wishes to cater to.

And I do not believe the entire industry will collectively cater to one group in this case. There will still be those who are on the side who are against the idea of paid mods.
 
kbrickley said:
DLC has been extraordinarily profitable for companies but we haven't seen it universally embraced by all developers ... I fail to see why everyone thinks that paid mods will be universally accepted
Click to expand...
Maybe not universal, just common-place, which is a step down from what we have today. Regression sucks.
Hornet said:
Not just by having 1% of the player base buying stuff, that obviously isn't going to cover the cost let alone generate profits. Therefore if it is a success, that means a majority of its player base are ok with purchasing mods.
Click to expand...
All of my favorite mods were created with ZERO profits. This whole idea that you have to pay for mods or no one will make them we know is false, because free mods we all love and enjoy existed and now are restricted to a single download source and cost money.

Mods can and should be free. That system just works, even if it doesn't generate more profits for publishers.
 
OP should go write articles for Gawker. Same click-bait, sensationalist writing.

This situation has pros and cons on both sides of the fence. I was initially part of the angry horde, but that was myknee-jerk reaction. "Pay for mods? Blasphemy! Heresy!" But after things calmed down, and I ignored the mob of reddit users foaming at the mouth, I realized something: It is far too early to make any solid statements as to whether or not this is positive or negative. This argument as a slew of both positive and negative points to be made, on both sides of the argument.

However, claiming that it's the end of PC gaming? Not even close, but everyone is busy throwing out their opinion as if they're some sort infallible genius that can see the future and just knows that this is "the end".

People are just pissed that they can't have free stuff. Give it a few weeks, let the market decide. Wait for the dust to settle, then we can all have a nice, positive dialogue about this whole thing, and can reach some real conclusions, based on actual facts and data points, rather than hypothetical "what-ifs" fueled by outrage.
 
Ducman69 said:
All of my favorite mods were created with ZERO profits. This whole idea that you have to pay for mods or no one will make them we know is false, because free mods we all love and enjoy existed and now are restricted to a single download source and cost money.

Mods can and should be free. That system just works, even if it doesn't generate more profits for publishers.
Click to expand...

I agree that the current approach works, and I expect it to continue working in the future. And certainly no one is claiming that we need modders to be paid to continue this tradition of game modding.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be an alternative system that allows other approaches towards modding. And this may open up other possibilities, only time will tell.

I'm reminded of CTDP. They are right now actively developing mods for the new racing game which is great. But there was a time where they had to contemplate about the future of their work in creating full season mods for the racing game F1 99-02, as talents begin to leave the team due to having to hold a full time job and supporting their families. There were supportive comments by users who said they were willing to pay for their work. Of course it wouldn't be legal, but I did wonder, that if they were able to work full time and sell their mods for a modest price as their main source of income, would things had been different for them.
 
I don't see a problem. I won't pay Gabe for a mod for a game. He doesn't make money. The whole thing is a waste of time.
 
Ducman69 said:
You're talking about something that literally created ZERO income for IP owners, and if anything may have taken from it in that people were enjoying older games longer instead of upgrading to the next incremental increase the IP owner released
Click to expand...

This is nonsense, and I would argue in the case of some real break-through mods the exact opposite is true. How many Half-Life's sold because of CounterStrike? How many Arma's sold because of DayZ? Both of which started as free mods and became standalone commercial products, lest we forget.

And why the fuck shouldn't IP owners take a cut? Modders piggy-back on the work of professional developers, without having to share any of the risk of commercial game development. Yes, some are more extreme conversions, some mods fix bugs the developers ought to have fixed themselves, but just like with mobile apps, the majority are worthless trash which have more in common with TF2 hats.

But if a mod is more involved, and required thousands of hours of development time, why shouldn't modders themselves get paid? If there's a mod you want but don't want to pay for, what's to stop you developing your own version? Because you lack the necessary talent and skills? Well, perhaps that's what you're paying for.

This whole "argument" is just dripping in entitlement. "I've had free mods for years, why should I pay?", tucked behind a thin veneer of "this isn't true to what PC gaming and modding is about".
 
This part of one article is where I see the biggest problem coming in....

Already, one of the paid Skyrim mods has been taken down after one user claimed another user was selling it using animations that he had originally created in his own mod. The mod store seller claimed that Valve actually forbade him from contacting the original animator about using his work because of an NDA about the existence the store. And this is somebody who is actually well-meaning. The “wrong crowd” mentioned above could easily slide in and just start stealing other people’s work left and right and selling it on the store. I’ve already heard of modders taking down their mods rather than let them potentially be stolen and used for paid store offerings. Even if Valve has some sort of report system in place, it’s going to be a headache to sort through justified and unjustified claims based on who iterated off whose work and who has the rights to the original mod and so on and so forth. It’s a nightmare waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

Many modders will likely just stop putting out mods than put up with that sort of bullshit hassle. Most of them got into modding for the love of the game, not to make money, and they'll quit on principle rather than start charging in some cases, though not all I'm sure.
 
Litfod said:
This whole "argument" is just dripping in entitlement. "I've had free mods for years, why should I pay?", tucked behind a thin veneer of "this isn't true to what PC gaming and modding is about".
Click to expand...
Explain to me like I'm five why the free system was inferior to this locked down paid system, and why a simple donate button in which Steam takes perhaps 10% transaction fee and gives the mod creator 90% wouldn't be a better option from a consumer standpoint?
 
It won't take long for quality modders to go the monetary route. It's only human nature. First you do for fun, but when you have the opportunity to monetize your fun, what are you going to do?

I worry about Cities Skylines - a game that should really become something thanks to mods over the next few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top