OH72
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OH72
-
-
Hi all. Due to a HD crash, I lost my previous installation of Vortex, Witcher 3 and the installed mod files. Upon reinstalling Vortex, it seemed to know how many mods I had used for Witcher 3, probably because some AppData survived somewhere. But the folder with the mods is gone. Now the question is - if Vortex knows how many mods there were, might there be a way to recover the mod list, so I can re-download the mods?
Well first thing you can do is (from the mods page rather than from inside the forums) click on
Mods > Mod history.
That should cover all the mods you downloaded here at nexus, since they're recorded.
You can also check in the regular location for the load order if that folder still exists.
... /AppData/Local/Skyrim Special Edition
Don't think I'll mind much information for mods for Witcher 3 in there...
Anyway, if I search for "Witcher" in my mod download history, I see 28 mods. But Vortex tells me I had 23 mods active. Now if I look more closely, some of the mods in the download history are for Witcher 2, so maybe I can reconstruct it from there. I just wondered if Vortex somehow remembers "from a previous life" how many mods were active, it might also be able to tell me which ones...
-
Hi all. Due to a HD crash, I lost my previous installation of Vortex, Witcher 3 and the installed mod files. Upon reinstalling Vortex, it seemed to know how many mods I had used for Witcher 3, probably because some AppData survived somewhere. But the folder with the mods is gone. Now the question is - if Vortex knows how many mods there were, might there be a way to recover the mod list, so I can re-download the mods?
-
I have the same problem at the moment with a freshly set-up windows 10. Used to be able to run Vortex in the previous installation. Due to a hard disk wipe, I had to reinstall everything, and now Vortex complains about having Admin rights, even though neither the installation was run as admin nor Vortex itself.
-
In response to post #56641926. #56646641, #56651231 are all replies on the same post.As a matter of fact, still not having bought FO4, I'm waiting with my purchase until Vortex is released :PGalschar wrote: I really hope Vortex gets released soon. I want to start modding Fallout 4 with it :)tajetaje wrote: AgreedGalschar wrote: For now, I am making a mod list that I'll use for my next F4 play-through.
Cause that's always the part that takes ages :) -
In response to post #55826861. #55826971, #55827211 are all replies on the same post.FilthyCasual523FilthyCasual523 wrote: Without MO's style of virtualization I don't see how useful this new manager would be compared to the previous NMM. MO's style of virtualization was what set it apart from and made it superior to every other manager out there.
The way Vortex is being described, I won't be able to use different mod loadouts for different character profiles the way I could with MO, or pretty much any of MO's other functions. It sounds like all it is, is a new NMM that's supposed to be virtual but really isn't considering the mods are still getting installed in the data folder.FilthyCasual523 wrote: I did read. That was what I gleaned from it.
How did you glean from it that mods are installed in the data folder when it uses LINKS? -
Please see the wiki article "Troubleshooting Basics - XCOM-EU 2012"; especially the section on "Windows Error Messages". If you are getting a CTD, then you should have a Windows error message as well.
-Dubious-
Well, my system is running in German, but I assume you'll be able to make sense out of this:
Name der fehlerhaften Anwendung: XComEW.exe, Version: 1.0.0.9040, Zeitstempel: 0x531774e6
Name des fehlerhaften Moduls: KERNELBASE.dll, Version: 10.0.15063.502, Zeitstempel: 0xc3955624Ausnahmecode: 0x00000001Fehleroffset: 0x000eb802ID des fehlerhaften Prozesses: 0x10ccStartzeit der fehlerhaften Anwendung: 0x01d31d207b4adcb4Pfad der fehlerhaften Anwendung: D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\XCom-Enemy-Unknown\XEW\Binaries\Win32\XComEW.exePfad des fehlerhaften Moduls: C:\Windows\System32\KERNELBASE.dllBerichtskennung: 5fa590e3-fabd-4ec7-bc66-a118e7d65eb8Vollständiger Name des fehlerhaften Pakets:Anwendungs-ID, die relativ zum fehlerhaften Paket ist:Name der fehlerhaften Anwendung: XComEW.exe, Version: 1.0.0.9040, Zeitstempel: 0x531774e6
Name des fehlerhaften Moduls: XComEW.exe, Version: 1.0.0.9040, Zeitstempel: 0x531774e6Ausnahmecode: 0xc0000005Fehleroffset: 0x00e77ce1ID des fehlerhaften Prozesses: 0x10ccStartzeit der fehlerhaften Anwendung: 0x01d31d207b4adcb4Pfad der fehlerhaften Anwendung: D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\XCom-Enemy-Unknown\XEW\Binaries\Win32\XComEW.exePfad des fehlerhaften Moduls: D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\XCom-Enemy-Unknown\XEW\Binaries\Win32\XComEW.exeBerichtskennung: 4b135ebf-efd1-4ce4-8b9d-148bf64b1fd5Vollständiger Name des fehlerhaften Pakets:Anwendungs-ID, die relativ zum fehlerhaften Paket ist:These were the two Error-Level events during the last crash, the upper one at 23:33:10 and the lower one at 23:33:28 local time.There were two information events as well.At 23:33:28 was this:Fehlerbucket , Typ 0
Ereignisname: APPCRASHAntwort: Nicht verfügbarCAB-Datei-ID: 0Problemsignatur:P1: XComEW.exeP2: 1.0.0.9040P3: 531774e6P4: KERNELBASE.dllP5: 10.0.15063.502P6: c3955624P7: 00000001P8: 000eb802P9:P10:Angefügte Dateien:\\?\C:\Users\ohaus\AppData\Local\Temp\WERA779.tmp.WERDataCollectionStatus.txt\\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WERBB0D.tmp.csv\\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WERBB2D.tmp.txtDiese Dateien befinden sich möglicherweise hier:C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\ReportArchive\AppCrash_XComEW.exe_369ee9e476fb6d5cee1ff5779ed8ffddd32ddf7_f70ab2b7_19bed898Analysesymbol:Es wird erneut nach einer Lösung gesucht: 0Berichts-ID: 5fa590e3-fabd-4ec7-bc66-a118e7d65eb8Berichtstatus: 97Bucket mit Hash:And at 23:33:45 this:
Fehlerbucket 73132839866, Typ 1
Ereignisname: APPCRASHAntwort: Nicht verfügbarCAB-Datei-ID: 0Problemsignatur:P1: XComEW.exeP2: 1.0.0.9040P3: 531774e6P4: XComEW.exeP5: 1.0.0.9040P6: 531774e6P7: c0000005P8: 00e77ce1P9:P10:Angefügte Dateien:\\?\C:\Users\ohaus\AppData\Local\Temp\WEREEE2.tmp.WERDataCollectionStatus.txt\\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WER269.tmp.csv\\?\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\Temp\WER289.tmp.txtDiese Dateien befinden sich möglicherweise hier:C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\WER\ReportArchive\AppCrash_XComEW.exe_b5efd5f08ae3532595d07bc77fce37912e5ffa9_f70ab2b7_09371c48Analysesymbol:Es wird erneut nach einer Lösung gesucht: 0Berichts-ID: 4b135ebf-efd1-4ce4-8b9d-148bf64b1fd5Berichtstatus: 268435456Bucket mit Hash: a70c1d4158f87c3da46ce58b5684f6ee -
Dug out XCOM EW again (fresh install). Installed Mutator Enabler, Sightlines and Commander's Choice Mods. Now I reproducibly have the problem that while I can load saves in base without a problem, any load of an in-mission save results in a crash. Disabling cloud access does nothing, alas. Would appreciate any help.
-
After several runs without a problem, suddenly OMM is giving me an error about not finding part of a path.
Crashdump is in German:
Donnerstag, 6. Juli 2017 - 03:46:111.1.12 (Safe mode)OS version: Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0Type: System.IO.DirectoryNotFoundExceptionError message: Ein Teil des Pfades "D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Oblivion\data\INI Tweaks" konnte nicht gefunden werden.Stack trace: bei System.IO.__Error.WinIOError(Int32 errorCode, String maybeFullPath)bei System.IO.Directory.DeleteHelper(String fullPath, String userPath, Boolean recursive)bei System.IO.Directory.Delete(String fullPath, String userPath, Boolean recursive)bei System.IO.DirectoryInfo.Delete()bei OblivionModManager.MainForm.TidyDataFolder()bei OblivionModManager.MainForm.MainForm_FormClosing(Object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)bei System.Windows.Forms.Form.OnFormClosing(FormClosingEventArgs e)bei System.Windows.Forms.Form.WmClose(Message& m)bei System.Windows.Forms.Form.WndProc(Message& m)bei System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.OnMessage(Message& m)bei System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)bei System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)As a consequence, OMM doesn't close and has to be killed with the Task ManagerAny idea why this suddenly started?As one possible clue, I have the impression that archive invalidation doesn't work properly. -
wen i went on today my character was glitched in the ground and completely invisible int 1st and 3rd person :sad: any ideas on how to fixx it?
Did you manage to solve this problem? Just having it myself.
-
You assert that I didn't describe correctly, without stating exactly what I didn't describe correctly. If you are referring to the fact that I was writing about Bethesda it is specifically and explicitly stated in the first paragraph.
I pointed out what part of the consequences you were not describing correctly.
You assert unequivocally that mods are a key part of the TES brand without addressing any of the statistical data to the contrary. Only 8% of Skyrim players use mods. Ostensibly fewer would be affected by their absence. I guess your opinions and assertions my be good enough for others but as for myself... citation needed.Sorry, but your reference to Skyrim data is no data "to the contrary". Skyrim does not define the TES brand. The TES brand is defined by the expecations established by the previous games and the auxiliary information released. The very fact that people expected a mod tool would be released for Skyrim illustrates that the availability of mods was understood to be a standard fare of the franchise.
You assert that the mod kit added to the longevity of the game which I explicitly stated that I didn't disagree with. Which I later explicitly stated as my own opinion. I also explicitly stated that the cost of creation kit was minimal. Thank you for agreeing with me. Who are you arguing this point against?I am pointing out the flaws in your argumentation - if you accept A, you have to conclude B.
Please indicate the difference between "has nothing" and "says nothing" and where you wrote"no real conclusions to be drawn". You quite literally wrote, with context so no possibility of taking it out of context."So, talking about a reduction in sales as a pure percentage is missing the point - a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits. A 4% loss in sales that manifests itself in week 1 has a much more serious effect on profits than an overall 4% loss that's distributed over the entire lifetime of a game."
Again you quite literally wrote that "a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits." I stated this was an exaggeration, implying it was true is moderation. I assume asymmetry of FCF distribution and then I expressly stated that time preference asymmetry would have some effect on profit.
Yes, it says nothing - it does not make any statement either way. That's a fundamentally different thing about there being no connection with it.
You can’t have mod users take credit for a disproportionate percent, more than 8%, of earlier sales without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm and they are less responsible for later sales, longevity.You also can’t say mod users add disproportionately, more than 8%, to the longevity of a games profitable life cycle, a disproportionate portion of latter sales, without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm, and contribute less up front sales and profitability.
I never said so, but I see where you are getting confused. You are confusing effects of mod USERS with effects of the existence of mods. They are very, very, distinct thing.
Someone who buys Skyrim now knows that there are mods which can bring the graphics more up to date, so that IF they dislike the graphics, they CAN adjust them. That doesn't say anything about whether they will actually do so, but it DOES influence buying decision.
You seem to be asserting what appear to be BOTH mutually exclusive and contradictory theories at the same time.Nope. You are merely confused about the actual statement and how buying decisions are made.
“No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation. ”Never state or implied anything about relieving anyone of any duties whatsoever. Never stated nor implied the mod organizer didn't exist. Why would ensuring compatibility “not cut it”? Cut what? I agree that someone purchasing a defective product should get their money back… now who were you replying too in this section… perhaps we should find them?
Perhaps you should, for once, READ what you reply to instead of setting up strawmen?
I wrote "providing compatibility for other popular mods doesn't cut it", which led you to ask "Why would ensuring compatibility "not cut it"?" The point is the fact that compatibility for other popular mods is not sufficient. Either it works, period, or it doesn't - in which case the mod creator might be given a chance to help the buyer get it to work (which is a logistical nightmare probably no modder can truly fulfil) but failing that, have to refund the buyer.
As was pointed out in a Forbes article on the issue, mods are by nature experimental. The permutations of different mod environments at an end user are so vast that it's impossible to provide any guarantees as to whether a mod will work.
How is stating "People shouldn't sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so. " “wishful thinking”? It was a statement of advice, and legal responsibility, not expectation.It's wishful thinking because it will never happen, and as such makes your whole notion of practicality void. The reason we have this whole discussion is that a lof of mod creators are great at creating things, but not precisely the best entrepreneurs.
Nobody was discouraged. The contract was open for all to read and the Valve representative explicitly stated that his comment was not legal advice. This could easily be construed as implying the exact opposite of discouraging, but instead actively encouraging legal counsel.Hardly, when they ask modders to not discuss the issue with anyone.
So… a fraction of 14%, or apparently an even smaller fraction of 8%, does not support the premise that only a small portion of Skyrims sales are due to modding? How small of a percentage would you think indicate a small percentage? Considering Bethesda could have eliminated the entire PC market for Skyrim and it still would have been a success.Which would still change nothing about the fact that Skyrim is built on the shoulders of predecessors which influence buying decisions.
What are you going on about? "It doesn't exist in a void" utterly true and completely banal. So what? "TESI but TESV"? Who are you responding to?You and your lack of understanding of the concept of brand expectations.
Look it would be great if you actually responded to things I've actually written and arguments I've actually made instead of whoever, or whatever, it is you are going on about. Could you do that for me? Umkay? That would be great. (sips coffee)Of course. I'm sorry I forgot it's your prerogative to make up complete nonsense and misrepresent what you copy/pasted just before just for the sake of having something to argue against.
-
In response to post #24947964.
"That's not how these things work, alas. Your fractions do not represent how buying decisions are made."
I never said nor implied they were. I was writing about the ramification from Bethesda's perspective.
Which you didn't describe correctly
I could just as easily state that many that end up using mods did not anticipate mod use and therefore valued the unit for less initially. This means for this factor to have an effect on the stated 8% the number of those intending to use mods, and who therefore ascribed greater value to the unit, would have to substantially outnumber those that never intended to use mods, and who therefore ascribed a lower value to the product. This is of course purely speculative.Not a very credible argument, as the availability of mods is a key part of the TES brand.
I never argued that mod use did not contribute to sales or the longevity of the game. I only argued that it empirically, demonstrably, qualitatively modding didn't contribute enough to warrant the claims by some that modding is the raison d'etre for Skyrim's success. Also the creation of the mod kit added additional upfront costs, though not necessarily substantial.
But the latter is the point: ANY effort towards life cycle extension adds costs. The creation of the mod kit is about as cheap as life cycle extension can come - compared with the supply of comparable content by Bethesda, and especially the opportunity cost of working on Skyrim content rather than FO4 or TESVI content, the mod kit is negligible in cost.
You are exaggerating by saying it has nothing to do with lost profits. You could quantitatively ascertain the WACC Bethesda used and then determine the net present value of their free income stream with respect to time preference but the basis of this calculation is the initial cash flow. Generally speaking FCF/(1+WACC)^T, or similar NPV equations or FV equations, over the relatively short existence of Skyrims life would hardly warrant the assertion of "says nothing". Though I'm not disagreeing that it would have SOME effect.I never said it has nothing to do with lost profits. I said it says nothing about lost profits, it allows no real conclusion to be drawn.
But you are making a fundamental mistake here, though I know it's one that's quite common. You are using averages for grossly asymmetrical distributions - that's not a valid use of statistics. It makes a significant difference whether you lose 4% of sales at a time when the price is $70 or whether you lose them over the whole lifespan when for the vast majority of that lifespan, the price is is dramatically below $70.
You assertion would also have to strongly positively correlate early purchase with mod usage instead of the alternate possibility of mod users purchases being distributed across time without preference.Since sales in general are not distributed across time without preference, it is unreasonable to assume that would be different for mod users.You are of course assuming most of the modding parameters would remain the same. I can only speculate but I would assume a fewer number of more comprehensive mods with greater in built compatibility for other popular mods would sell. I can only speculate but assume mod organization utilities would be created if modding generated millions in revenue.No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation.
People shouldn’t sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so.That's wishful thinking. Not only did Valve not only point out to people what they were getting themselves into, they discouraged them implicitly from educating themselves. But that's not even the end of it, because Valve themselves are notoriously ignorant of legal obligations outside the US.
The evidence that this premise is based upon is fairly abundant. Sales data alone, with the assumption of statistically insignificant utilization of non pc platform modding, would indicate an upper limit on mod utilization of 14%. Their assertion of 8% does not seem unreasonable.Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't support your premise, as it ignores the issue of branding and the influence branding has on sales.
I’m simply pointing out the relative unimportant of modding to the success of Skyrim. Not that it didn’t help. Only that people shouldn't exaggerate how much. Without extreme speculation and assumptions there is simply little reason to believe that modder, modding, the community, ect. had any more than marginal contributions to the commercial success of Skyrim.Neither extreme speculations nor assumptions, just the understanding that Skyrim doesn't exist in a void and is not TESI but TESV.
-
Trigger warning: This post is about perspective and relative importance. This may caused those with over-inflated senses of self importance to feel fear, anxiety, rage, or other negative emotions and lash out uncontrollably at those that have triggered them.
I love mods and i know it is easy to lose perspective being part of a modding community but the reality is... the modding community is simply not that important to the success of Bethesda's games or their bottom line.
According to Bethesda only about 8% of Skyrim players have ever used even a single mod and that less than 1% have ever created one. Given that the majority of those that have used mods would still have purchased and played Skyrim without mods this leaves well less than 4% of their sales in some way dependent on the modding community.
For the fraction of the 8% of mod users against paid for mods, and would never pay for mods if available, you aren't even potential customers and aren't terribly relevant to Bethesda's business decisions. Bethesda decisions about paid for mods also have to take into account the other 92%+ of Skyrim players that have never used a mod and to the other fraction of 8% that that are potential customers of paid for mods. Together they comprise well over 92% of their customers.
The VAST majority of Bethesda's customers are not part of the modding community. This community, both for and against paid for modding, is a very small minority of Skyrim players.
Some here have completely lost perspective on their relative importance to the success of Bethesda. Some have claimed, against all evidence, that Bethesda's success is somehow dependent upon mods and modding in general. This does not empirically seem to be the case.
Even if all who oppose paid for mods boycotted Bethesda they would see, at most, a few percent drop in sales of their game. A drop that may very well be more than made up for with increases in revenue from mods and those that may very well purchase their game due to the ease of use and easy availability of paid for mods.
That's not how these things work, alas. Your fractions do not represent how buying decisions are made.
What matters is the anticipated value of a game vs. the price asked. As such, someone as much as considering the use of mods - whether they end up using one or not - will attribute a greater value to the game and as such be willing to pay more. That also means they will buy earlier, when the price is still higher.
Mods also contribute to the longevity of the game, postponing the end of the product life cycle. To get such an effect would normally involve COSTS for Bethesda. Thus, they profit from prolonged attractiveness of the game, at a time when it has long recovered the production costs, without having to invest further.
So, talking about a reduction in sales as a pure percentage is missing the point - a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits. A 4% loss in sales that manifests itself in week 1 has a much more serious effect on profits than an overall 4% loss that's distributed over the entire lifetime of a game.
Lastly, I'm not sure what makes you believe that paid mods will have a greater ease of use. They will have the very same compatibility problems as every other mod out there. They are also far less easy to use than alternatives, with Steam caring little for load order and dependencies.
They will also have a mod creator behind them who has no idea about the legal obligations they are under, nor has the logistics at their disposal to meet them...
-
In response to post #24657179. #24657319 is also a reply to the same post.Exactly. Gopher makes a living creating content. I'm completely fine with that and am a happy consumer of his product. So why are modders, who also create content, somehow evil demons for trying to do the same? The mind boggles.nekollx wrote:Reaper0021 wrote: Because...well.....Gopher is a very very well known YouTuber/celebrity and isn't in charge of a major website with over 8 million subscribers while Dark0ne is and can be seen as the evil 'corporate' guy maybe? I don't know.
You are comparing apples and oranges (which is not to say that said modders are evil demons in my eyes)
You are comparing a YouTuber, for whose content no one has to pay a dime directly unless they want to, and whose content is plain accessible for anyone for whom YouTube works, with people who directly SELL an actual code product - all without the usual guarantees you get when buying something.
-
I think neither Valve nor the mod authors at issue really understand the legal can of worms they are opening. I doubt that a mod author in the US understands what it means, for example, to sell software into the EU - especially since Valve themselves have shown in the past that even they don't. And they are likely to be in for another rude awakening with their return policy on mods.
Folks, if you consider monetarizing your mods, understand one thing: The moment people spend money for your products, they have rights. And you should think long and hard whether you are aware of said rights and whether you are willing to fulfill them. You should also know that a lot of that burden should technically be on Valve's shoulders, as Valve is the party doing the transaction with the end user, but Valve is screwing you over for it.
-
I have been using Arissa for quite a while and so far without problems. I had a few general glitches with the game earlier today which resolved when I removed another mod, but since then, Arissa is not wearing ANY armor, just her default clothes. She has light and heavy armor at her disposal and IS wearing helmet, weapons, shield etc - just not the armor.
Any idea what the reason might be and how to fix it? Taking stuff away and giving it back to her (via the "manage your equipment" function of the mod, of course) won't make her wear it, either, nor will she put something on when in combat. As I implied above, this was not the case previously.
-
I know that RND lowers max carry weight, but by a specific amount, not steadily using more. I checked the character active effects before and after this started and didn't see any effect that might explain it. I ended up going back several savegames and have been able to continue from there. I have a suspicion what mod could have been responsible, but have been focussing on repeating the activities lost to the reversion first.
-
Hello,
I started to observe a continuous drop in max carry weight even going well into the negative by the thousands. When I saw a negativ max carry weight for the first time, I tried to simply adjust it via console, but then observed that when just closing and reopening the inventory, it was already down by 30-50 points, and continued to drop over time, giving me constant game messages about being too encumbered to run.
Does anyone have an idea what might be causing this?
Hope For The Best, But Expect The Worst
in Site Support
Posted
Since Nexus isn't using those programs themselves, the point is moot. The uploader licensed the product and by uploading certified that they have the right to distribute content made with that software and to grant distribution rights to third parties. If that was not the case, it's the mod maker who has a problem - they are in a contractual relationship with the program maker.
Incidentally, when a team of scientists submits the results of their work as a scientific publication to a journal, they invariably are expected to grant the journal distribution rights in perpetuity, so that the journal's archives aren't compromised. In some cases, they have to sign over full copyright, retaining solely the right to personal copies and to give away copies by direct request. The journals don't commission these articles, they don't pay for the research and they do not even do the in-depth scientific review, they outsource that to other scientists who do it for free, deciding whether the study is fit for publication or not.
And yet the big publishing houses like Elsevier, SpringerNature, Wiley etc. make a truckload of money solely by formatting, layouting, basic editorial work, and distributing the content electronically and in print. Where journals or articles aren't open access, the only way to get to the content is by a) a subscription or b)paying an insane amount for the individual article (USD 25-35 for a handful of pages).
Are you saying that your work is more important than, say, trying to cure pancreatic cancer?
Or why, precisely, do you think something that's standard practice in medical research globally is supposedly illegal when it comes to mods?
There's been legislation in sundry countries to guarantee that at least taxpayer-funded research is available to the public without additional payments. Do you think such legislation would have happened if a simple legal challenge would have been enough?
What, precisely, makes a mod for a game so important that it should get preferential treatment over years of life-saving research?