AnyOldName3

In response to post #54930308. #54930478, #54930773, #54930833, #54930843, #54930848, #54930913, #54931018, #54931133, #54931298, #54931363 are all replies on the same post. Mod Organizer 2 doesn't seem to actually be abandoned anymore. There were commits today, for example, which doesn't suggest to me that it's abandoned.

I'm pretty sure an HDT64 mod could technically be sold for a profit without Bethesda's permission. I hang around on the OpenMW forums a lot, so have a reasonable idea about how far Bethesda's ability to block stuff actually goes (although, of course, I could know less than I think I do and be flat out wrong about all of this). Technically, they can only restrict the copyright on content produced by their tools (the Creation Kit) where their tools put an amount of data copyrighted by Bethesda into the content files. While this could potentially be used to argue that they should have control over mods created by open-source tools like TES5Edit (if they create files by copying data from a sample file from Bethesda), something created entirely separately (such as a DLL file) should be free. I'd expect a theoretical HDT64 mod to not include anything from Skyrim itself, but instead just have a bunch of pointers to where in the Skyrim executable the data it needs lives. (Again, I could be wrong about this, as I'm not exactly sure how the kind of runtime memory meddling that this kind of mod uses actually works.) All of this might be irrelevant anyway, even if it is wrong. One of the things Bethesda said they wouldn't allow (after the paid mods fiasco) is modders setting up a Patreon, but several modders have one now, and Bethesda haven't been suing the crap out of them, even though they claim they could. :tongue:

In response to post #39684490. #39686550 is also a reply to the same post. Based on my (albeit limited) understanding of copyright law, the Nexus would have had to buy out FileFront's licences to distribute the files (which would potentially have been dirt cheap as they'd gone bust already) if they were to rehost them without manually contacting every single mod author about every single file. If that's what happened, as far as the original author is concerned, the Nexus is now FileFront, so nothing's changed except a URL, and it's possible that, depending on how it's done, they may have the same ability to control the files as they did before. This is based on conjecture, but if it's right, then it explains how the situations are different, and if it's wrong, then I don't know enough about this to participate in this discussion, and can safely be ignored. :)

In response to post #28557464. But if you're the first downloader of a mod, how are you going to know that it's any good just from the screenshots and description? We already have cases of mod pages being pretty miss-representative, so either a lot of people will end up scammed, or it's going to be a huge amount of work if more than a small handful of mods ever make it there.

In response to post #28555414. #28558194 is also a reply to the same post. The issues I see with this are that people who've paid for supporter membership have done so under the premise of seeing no ads on the nexus ever again. Changing that after they've paid isn't particularly fair (and is probably against a bunch of EU and UK trading laws). However, the payment was taken at a level to cover the Nexus' expenses, but not to reimburse modders for lost ad revenue too, so the price may have to be altered, which means older users will have got a better deal (which is fairer, but still not ideal). I imagine premium membership has a much larger margin, so has room to give some to modders. People who use adblockers are also a bit of an issue, but the whole site overall copes with that adequately, so it's reasonable to assume ads in mod pages wouldn't fair differently. Finally, a perfect mod would get fewer page views than a buggy mess, simply because if you're having to come back to troubleshoot that's an extra visit the bug-free mod would have got. All these mean your solution isn't perfect, but then I'm not sure a perfect solution exists. Ideally, I'd have Bethesda just charge a little more for the game, and then have some kind of system where they partner with big mod authors like the unofficial patch team, Mike Hancho, and Fore to give them money and support to release their work as part of the main game, with smaller things from other authors that come down to taste being released as free 'DLC', with everything being screened for bugs and incompatibilities by Bethesda. I feel this would remove Bethesda's incentive to release a feature-poor, buggy game and then profit off modders fixing it, would not stop people making a second mod that does the same job as another, would allow proper quality control, and would allow Bethesda to take some kind of cut without it being solely based on the work of others (after all, it was possible under their previous system to use entirely open-source tools like TES5Edit, Blender and Nifskope without ever even running Skyrim or anything Bethesda made and still have them take a cut).

In response to post #21465079. #21471194, #21475539, #21486314, #21492659, #21493049, #21496224, #21498054, #21501324, #21501874, #21502489 are all replies on the same post. To tack onto this, I also have this issue, but not constantly, just most of the time. It also seems like images will load in groups of two or three a lot of the time. (When I click on an image, it might take 10-30s to load, but when I press the right arrow key to load the next one or two, they'll load instantly. The one after that will then take the full age to load, just like the first did, but the one after might load fine).

The one by Dimon99 is the original. As it's called dimonized UNP, it sounds like it's modified, but it isn't.