Chernobylite12

The majority praise I've seen regarding these changes is a very vocal minority of the user base who see you making changes that affect paid mods in a negative way. That's all they care about. You could have said we're banning anyone who participates in the VC program and recieved positive feedback from many of those same users. Both this forum and the various Bethesda game reddits have *plenty* of feedback regarding the negatives here, and it definitely seems like you're deliberately downplaying and or ignoring it in an effort to support an ideological stance regarding paid mods that you have no interest in changing, regardless of what the community has to say about it.

Fair enough - my understanding was so long as the patch is part of a bigger collection. I.e. the JKs city hub. It would be in the clear. If you're reading is correct then nexus is still making things harder than they need to.

Are they not in the clear with the most recent revision?

While I definitely believe so called patch hubs should be allowed, I do appreciate the compromise being made as it at least addresses the most grevious concerns being raised. I would encourage patch hubs being reviewed and allowed on the basis of if the patch is designed to interact with a free mod that is posted on nexus there is still no compelling reason for it to not be hosted on the nexus. Edit 2: I've thought on this more and reread the latest update from Picky, and I think that Nexus is choosing to believe a narrative of its own making - most of the feedback i have seen here falls into 2 camps: Paid mods = bad, and anything that makes them less appealing is good. And The change regarding patches just hurts all of us. ....... Where people are generally positive is in that demos, early access, etc being disallowed is perfectly fine. I still believe the walk back is a step in the right direction, I also believe that nexus is being a bit disingenuous in how this is being handled, the reasons for it being done in the first place, and what the actual ramifications for the user, both mod authors and Downloader experience are. As has been pointed out elsewhere, nexus is suggesting that Bethesda can change their store to be better, and more in line with nexus. Which is on its face, impossible. Console restrictions exist, and Bethesda has to work within that framework to distribute mods to console users. Pc users are under no such restriction, which allows most of our 3rd party tools that allow our mod lists to be built more comprehensively. This whole thing looks like nexus leveraging it's market dominate position to push pc users into only utilizing the nexus, at the expense of anything from the Bethesda store, that isn't official dlc. Again, the latest revision is a step in the right direction, but I am still wary of the ramifications, and have definitely reevaluated my trust in the platform.

It's likely a result as it is a patch hub for a paid mod thusly it is against policy. Do mind the leapords, they leave quite a mess when they eat faces.

Correct - this new policy change will require mod authors to remove potentially hundreds of mods to remove patches that they have bundled into installers or on their pages. That or risk being found in violation of the policy

As I've mentioned previously - this move is quite antagonistic to Bethesda/Microsoft. As it looks like nexus is directly attempting to set itself up as the better *freeeee* alternative to Beth's store - and while they make relative pennies off of any VC purchase. Pennies add up, and given the option of pennies vs no pennies they're going to choose the former. I could very easily see Bethesda saying enough is enough changing the terms of use on the kit and saying the only legitimate way to distribute ESP/l/m files generated with the kit is through the bethesda storefront. In which case we all lose.

If you're an ideologue then yes this is pushback - I suspect that most people have got it figured that being a VC gets you a low fraction of what Bethesda is pulling for those mods. To clarify i think that idea of this being anything other that a performative stamping of feet is questionable. The only people who lose here are users.

But paid mods are entirely optional - so what's the big angst about them, other than entitlement? While I think we agree in that modding is primarily a hobby, for some people it has been successful enough that they have been able to make it a bigger part of their lives. The argument of paid mods = bad is entirely dependent on us only acknowledging the parts that benefit Bethesda or hurt users. But forgetting that users still have the option of getting the content if they want it or still having access to the free mods that have always existed, and the mod authors getting something out of the deal as well.

You're missing the point - there was no issue before hand because beth got their cut, and nexus got their ad traffic. Nexus has made an explicitly antagonistic move towards Bethesda. Regardless of the language it's couched in. We all operate under the general good grace of Bethesda allowing us to mod their games, and explicitly supporting it. And Bethesda knows they can make money off that now. It's a bit of a Faustian bargain but it's what we've got. The realistic approach is to play nicely and not rock the boat too much.

I don't need that decision to be made for me - I bought a paid mod because it looked interesting and a mod author I like the work of got a couple bucks off that - isn't that a win for everyone? The only loss was what I might have spent for coffee one morning.

Which only hurts the nexus, or in a more extreme extrapolated nexus is doing something that has a very real possibility Bethesdas cash flow, who's to say they don't just change the Eula and say the only okay mods exist on their platform? Everyone loses then. Nexus making a petty performative political stance on paid mods is both asinine, and disappointing. Paid mods aren't going anywhere, and mod authors who are VC's seem generally happy with the arrangement they have. Mod users weren't complaining in any noticeable numbers about their favorite nexus mods being patched for what ever VC mod. For the most part I generally agree with the change they made - the issue is patches for those mods being treated the way they are is just hostile to the community who has chosen to use paid mods, even if all they spent was the 500 credits Bethesda gave us with a premium edition.

Paid mods are here to stay whether or not you or I like it. Best thing we can do is encourage "good" paid mods vs crappy cash grabs. Regarding posting of patches - my understanding is that anything on the CC store cannot have dependencies outside the CC store.

You're missing my point on a technicality, and then going on a tangent about Bethesda bad. Answer these questions: If the patch for a paid mod is itself free - why is nexus banning it, and how does that improve modding for users? As someone else pointed out - I can't have a patch for Lux posted for Elianora's house mod on nexus because the house mod is paid. Nor can I have a patch for it posted on CC store because it has dependencies. Whereas until this decision i could have that patch on nexus with no harm to anyone. The modding experience for users is objectively harmed by Nexus' stance on patches. No one is particularly fussed about demo mods, early access, or other paid variations themselves being banned. But saying a free patch is no longer allowed is performative politics by nexus regarding what they think modding should be. It's bad for me as a user, it's bad for mod authors as it disincentivises them using the CC store to earn money as a VC. Which in turn gives Bethesda a reason to change the eula to disallow 3rd party mod sites, as nexus has made a move that obviously will hurt beths in house platform.

For the same reason you're paying to host any other mods that you choose not to use - because that's the bargain. When dawnguard, or shivering isles came out, nexus wasn't blocking mods for those till everyone had them. "But *I* can't use it" isn't a good justification. It's like saying nexus can't host patches for Cities of the North because you use JK's. (And don't want to mix them...i know they cam be patched together - but if one was on CC then you couldn't with the policy anyways.) Nexus was successful because it centralized all the different places where mods were getting hosted.

This I think is the biggest flaw in how nexus is handling this - Bethesda created a fairly straightforward way for Modders to make money off their mods with zero risk of breaking EULA - get verified and post it here, and its officially ordained as safe. All Nexus had to do was carve out an exception for things from the "official platform" being allowed to have patches and a lot of the negative blowback they're getting would be silenced.

Where is it against Bethesda's TOS? There is no language stating that. a patch posted on Nexus that is freely available (let alone posted by the team that made the paid mod in the first place if they made it) doesn't break TOS.

In most cases I'd agree, but where nexus specifically called out Beth's paid mod store even with their clarifications this seems like its somewhat targeted.

You cannot post a free patch for a paid mod. So a patch to make Bards College Expansion work with Skyrim's got talent (as a completely made up example) goes against Nexus TOS as it would be dependent on a paid mod.

Its a bit of a cop out no? From Bethesda's standpoint there is no real difference between something from the CC store being patched regardless of who made it. if it came from CC and you paid for it it's functionally "official" so far as they're concerned. The only place drawing a distinction in Nexus it would have been far easier for them to write it as "We only allow patches for so called paid mods that come from official outlets such as Bethesda's creation club" instead they've created far more work for themselves having to go through and ensure all the big patch pages don't have the audacity to contain a patch EEE or BCE or the like.

Except Bethesda hasn't changed their policy - Nexus did "wake up and choose violence" For the most part people aren't having a fit about anything other than the Nexus position on patches that are for paid mods, specifically as it relates to those paid mods that are hosted on Bethesda's store. Bethesda's position has been that paid mods have some degree of official blessing, so they specifically aren't against EULA as is stated in Nexus's announcement about why they're doing this. Which makes this seem a little fishy.

Isn't the arguement that patches for paid mods being a threat to Nexus's Finances more than a bit laughable? I'm pretty sure the unofficial patch page for Bards College Expansion is a fraction of the size of one the waifu mods that was posted within the last day. No one is saying Nexus needs to bear the brunt of the infrastructure to support paid mods, but we are saying that we'd like to be able to have the patches for them here, such that we can make them work with mods that are coming from here.

Fully agree - functionally the difference between BCE and a DLC the scale of say, Hearthfires comes down to the manufacturers label on the tin.

But why does this distinction need to exist? What benefit does the community at large derive from patches for paid mods being disallowed? LOTD can't have a patch for BCE on their official patch page for....reasons....with this decision. that's a net loss for those of us who want to use both.

Because as a customer of the Nexus - I'm not happy with what they're doing right now - My account is grandfathered premium (I paid once a long time ago, and don't have to pay monthly ever again) because I liked what nexus provided and felt that it was worth supporting (even ignoring the download speed perks etc) The Nexus quite simply only exists because of modding, and it profits indirectly off modding - in other words, no mods = no money = no nexus. The person I was replying to suggested people vote with their wallet - i.e. cancel subscriptions etc if we disagreed with Nexus' decision.