ThinkerTinker

This article was well written and I got the impression the Nexus team has matured very much since it formed and I started using it over a decade ago. I'm excited where things are going thus far and look forward to the future of the Nexus. Keep it up everyone! Thanks for all the hard work and dedication!

In response to post #39606255. #39608825, #39609445 are all replies on the same post. I thought Skyrim was released before the big Season Pass craze was a thing; I don't know though. I am assuming boomer is talking about Skyrim because he brought up Hearthfires. I don't know what brought that up to begin with - I don't know if I accidentally alluded to such a topic in one of my posts and am not realizing it or if it was mentioned in a previous post from this thread.

In response to post #39588720. #39590110, #39603345, #39609155 are all replies on the same post. I think I may be misunderstanding you. To be clear, no one can edit scripts if they don't have the source. And again, removing them if they are required to run in order for the assets to be loaded or your mod to function...well, it would obviously break the mod. I'm not talking about some barebones script - maybe that's where the miscommunication is. A new method would be a container script that is the first object to load up in the mod; it checks its dependencies and if they're there, it proceeds. If not, nothing gets loaded. It acts as both security as well as implements the features of the mod.

In response to post #39606255. Are you passively suggesting that you pirate the DLC? I'm genuinely confused by that last remark. And I'm not sure what brought up the "Bethesda ripping off a mod into a paid DLC" rhetoric; maybe I'm misinterpreting the origin of it. Either way, I don't really have any statements to make on this topic :/ I'm one of those people that has a really nice gaming PC, a really nice gaming laptop, a PS4, and an Xbox One (legit not trying to boast - I am blessed in being able to support my hobby and just trying to make a point of how platform-agnostic I am). I suspect that console users are just as intellectually capable as PC users of troubleshooting. That's not the point I'm really trying to make (as I think I failed at getting that across). The crux of my concern for console users is that they're much more restricted on being able to troubleshoot their mod issues than PC users are. Now ideally there won't be a(s much) need to troubleshoot on the scale a PC user needs to in console mods. But I'd also like to believe that console versions of mods are going to be just as fleshed out as their PC counterparts. Unfortunately, both of those desires are simple irreconcilable. If you believe otherwise then I don't think you're modding properly. TES5Edit is essentially a requirement for establishing and determining compatibility for anything more than a couple dozen mods installed. Its not rocket science, no, but its still more complicated than matching shaped blocks with their counter-part holes. Also, if you're activating and uninstalling mods willy-nilly that's horrible practice. I mean, I'm assuming you're oversimplifying in that statement but in case you really aren't, and I hate to sound condescending, but you really need to read some beginner's guide to modding articles. It doesn't matter if there's 11 BILLION people doing what you're doing while trying mods, if they're doing it while not respecting the practices of a community that has been collectively modding for probably as many years, then that's still 11 BILLION people modding wrongly. And yes, you can mod wrongly. Especially on a console.

In response to post #39588720. #39590110 is also a reply to the same post. I'm an advocate for this approach. I know it has its fair critiques but for more immediate term, I think its a viable solution. Yes, you could definitely just remove an empty script if it serves no function, but what if it had a function? Have the script call an script extender-only function and if it returns a value then obviously a script extender is loaded and the user is on a PC. I'm not sure how to accomplish it technically right off the top of my head for protecting against loose textures and assets but I'm sure it could be done too. Maybe this function has a signature (not "function signature", but like...some other kind of coded signature) that is unique to that author. Maybe that signature taps into another external application that allows checks to determine the registration of that mod and the author. That's really complicated but I think the point still stands. The idea of course is not to damage anything; if the script is loaded and a function call is made that the game can not handle then something blows up - maybe a message box, error warning, maybe it crashes. I don't condone intentionally corrupting saves or ruining hardware out of spite. I can't think of any reason why I would consider including a script for a mod I make as insulting, especially if that script serves to protect my work. I think the point of this incident is exactly: how do we protect author's work on their mods? So I think this solution is definitely on the right track though. I'm definitely open to criticism though!

In response to post #39602495. I tried to emphasize the words "USED to" - as in, past tense. Though mod thievery still existed back then, and will likely always exist, modding TES games is becoming more mainstream and the company that owns the franchise does not have as good of a foundation as this site does for supporting that kind of endeavor. It comes with these games becoming more mainstream I guess but I can still look to this community's history and see that it never USED to be this way. I'm not TRYING to pin this on console players; but your point that the Steam Workshop is a thing just reinforces the fact that the infrastructure does not exist to prevent the problem Robin is addressing. It is obvious then that the world at large is not ready for modding on a large scale because it can't respect established protocol - or maybe more protocol needs to be established.

In response to post #39594035. Mods aren't free DLC that come with hundreds of hours of QA and bug testing. Never have been, never will be. Although I love that consoles are finally being able to have mods because I've loved modding every Bethesda game since Oblivion and I started playing that on Xbox back in 2006/7, I'm beginning to think more and more that perhaps console owners shouldn't really get that privilege. There seem to be lots who think that a mod is just "click this button and install and your magically ready to go." F*** that noise, seriously. What this community USED to be was a tight knit group of people who would make mods, try them out, and in many cases an insane amount of troubleshooting and feedback was required. Anyone honestly expecting the ability to plug and play without having to do any background research on the mod and its compatibility is going to be a detriment to the community, plain and simple. While they're doing this background research, I suspect any issues about mod thievery would likely arise. I hope that most console users don't anticipate this being the case but...your attitude suggests otherwise.

In response to post #39491315. #39496050, #39497250, #39531815, #39534800, #39535005, #39554390, #39554680, #39556240, #39557575, #39559140, #39564305, #39566500 are all replies on the same post. You can't just remove a portion of an SKSE dependency that is required for functionality and expect the game to still work, or at least perform the function or feature intended. That's like saying "I could totally just pirate Windows by removing the System32 folder and copying in a crack". (I know that's not technically kosher analogy but it gets the point across) Okay, yes, while that's possible I guess the idea of someone undertaking that is laughable. I mean if a pirate goes out of their way to remove SKSE dependency it would require them essentially rewriting SKSE. I think SKSE might be open source but honestly, if you go through that much trouble to begin with then honestly you've got my blessing to pirate my mod. I mean Jesus. @Tauntalus - they have to know Papyrus, sure, but again, they also must have the source code. You can't edit a .pex file (the script file that the game reads) directly. You have to edit the .psc file. If an author doesn't include his source .psc files, then no pirate can just go take out that dependency. And you don't need a flag for anything; you just try and call a function added by SKSE and if SKSE isn't loaded, something will blow up (the extent to which depends on the function call). Something as simple as testing if GetSKSEVersion gives a return or an error would be a start.

In response to post #39491315. #39496050, #39497250, #39531815, #39534800, #39535005, #39554390, #39554680, #39556240 are all replies on the same post. @Toxic, you're right in that removing the script extender dependency by a pirate is an option in some cases. There are a couple scenarios I could see that would prevent this being an issue: 1) The more long-term method: create some other kind of external application that these mods tap into outside of a "script extender." This sort of application is beyond my scope of understanding; I'm not an expert with DirectX games or writing software any more complicated than simple C++ Console applications and C# Windows Forms but I think if there's a will, people will find a way to make it happen. 2) A more immediate method: changing the dependency on a script extender requires access to the source code. The files that the game reads (any scripts your mod includes) are compiled files - i.e. they can't just be opened up and modified. Source files are required to edit script dependencies et cetera. So in order for a pirate to change the dependency the pirate would have to have access to the source code, know how to code, and have the tools necessary to recompile the source code after being altered. Setting up that whole configuration is...not just a 30 minute job. Now, in the case of requiring dependencies or compatibility checks when all your mod does is include some loose files for overwriting a couple game textures with custom made ones of your own, I'm not sure how a script extender could be used in preventing this, but again, I think if the community thinks about it enough a solution will present itself.

In response to post #39491315. #39496050, #39497250, #39531815, #39534800, #39535005 are all replies on the same post. I definitely think we're on the right track with requiring SKSE or relevant script extender to run a mod. There are shortcomings in using a script extender as such a validation check - but this is how brainstorming and real problem solving works. Someone comes up with a good idea and people see why its a good idea at the root. In my opinion, I think its a good idea because it involves the use of an external tool that can be checked upon. So maybe SKSE isn't the exact long-term solution - maybe we create another external tool explicitly for the use of compatibility checking for a PC version of a mod (or lack thereof, for a console I guess?) But I think we're on the right track - use the benefits and uniqueness of the platform (in this case, PC) in order to hard-code compatibility and ensure against piracy. These are ideas we can build from and that's what makes this community so successful. Putting down ideas, or not trying to be open-minded about suggestions for solutions is sort of toxic and I hate to see this community resort to that language.