Ghatto

In response to post #28643194. So when we showed our dissatisfaction with a company's product and they refuse to compromise, we should blame ourselves?

In response to post #28622159. Sounds like the same 'flavour of the month' response to peoples concerns these days. How about actually forming an argument instead of an ad hominem. I'm not entitled to free skins. What I am though is old enough to remember how FUN games like Counterstrike were with free skins, sprays, mods etc. Yeah most of it's still there: maps, modes and the like, but if I want to spray a funny pic? Pay. Want a different colour gun? Pay. Have a little music? Pay. And really I can't stop the devs from doing that, but you did say "For games where paid mods are allowed, there is - and it ever will be - a full spectrum of free mods, full-priced mods, discounted mods, free demo-versions of full payable mods, and so on - whatever price discrimination marketing invented." and I gave an example of where there was no free version.

In response to post #28604034. Nobody needed to explain anything and nobody deserved anything. Mods just appeared. Yeah somebody put in their sweat and tears, but for any mod user... they just showed up and it wasn't a crime to download them. Heck, even if paid modding was a wholesomely accepted success and we didn't fight over the change, we would instead be fighting about the same things the rest of the commercial issues plaguing creative works: value for money and market troubles. We'd STILL be fighting. Mod users would be complaining about how much any mod costs and whether it's any good. Mod makers would be complaining that nobody cares about their mods and that they still can't make money, that they couldn't market their wares any better. We all know people make mods, that they're not robots. You can bet however that if mods were paid like they were, business would straight away invent some mod-making robots.

In response to post #28567949. #28568274, #28568494, #28571489, #28572304, #28575029, #28575269, #28593339, #28594674, #28596009, #28596734, #28602924, #28604599, #28614394, #28614759 are all replies on the same post. Everyone look. Seweryn isn't trying to tell people what to think or feel, or have you guys explain about whether you want to be paid for what you love or if you deserve to be. The confusion comes from wanting to understand the TRANSITION: as in how many modders who are all of a sudden pro-payment when they appeared happy to do so for free before.

In response to post #28616699. Oh yeah there's just so many free skins in Counter Strike GO I can use.

In response to post #28608069. #28610219, #28612134, #28612269, #28616814 are all replies on the same post. I wanna see some precedents. I mean really. There's tonnes of artists that are making money on unoriginal IP and are getting away with donations. All the examples the article provides are of Bethesda trying to keep an iron grip on their trademarks which is not the same. Unlike many other modified games that have sent out C&Ds, Skyrim et. al. allow modding in general, and don't block reverse-engineering (for modding sake). I mean how can they go after donations? How is there a provable link between profits of the maker and their free mods? Since the 'product' is free and allowed, the money is just being thrown at random people for 'whatever' reason. In fact if they're so worried about lawsuits then how is the current 'link to paypal' option even here?

In response to post #28618554. #28618879 is also a reply to the same post. You already pay for the tools, they come with the game you bought.

In response to post #28618854. #28619094 is also a reply to the same post. Well since many are using the hard work and effort of modders to promote paid mods, it's just as fair IMO to claim that video makers have put in the effort and should be paid. Of course you should always recognise that the payments will either be in ads made by a third party (which mods don't have) or donations. The latter really shouldn't be able to be stopped by anyone, I mean the Nexus guys here are afraid of Bethesda suing them but I'm having trouble seeing how they could.

In response to post #28614939. #28616054, #28617954, #28619064, #28619884 are all replies on the same post. Dude I'm not scared of losing something for free. I'm scared that these changing of the times will turn a fun part of gaming like this into the very kind of un-fun business-minded crap that the rest of gaming has turned into. It's also very hard to take your argument seriously when words like entitlement and privilege are thrown in.

Well that's just terrible. Bethesda can go suck a lemon. They don't deserve ANY cut. They already got their cut: every single person using mods has paid for a copy of the game. Not only that but these systems are donation systems, not payment systems. As stipulated in the article: no exclusive or withholding content is allowed. Thus, the payments to modders is wholly voluntary and can be seen as a donation directly to the author for whatever reason - heck they don't even have to claim that donations are in direct support of their modding efforts!

In response to post #25025599. #25028149 is also a reply to the same post. Pretty simple answer is that it's not a good return on investment. Even with a well thought out hypothetical like you've provided, it's pretty clear to me that any form of free vs. paid mods would have a remarkable difference in community size. Simply, there'll be a much much lower number of modders and mod-users in any case where mods or mod tools are paid for. A community like here on the Nexus would be a shadow of its current self. The only situation that will have the least impact is your first hypothetical: where mods and tools are still free, but the publisher pays some modders for whatever arbitrary reason. Since all participants have the same starting point, there's less barriers to entry. However they payments would have to be after the fact (after free mod publish) in order to avoid comparing the releases to licensed DLC and all the employment, and product qualification legalities that come with it. The only way I can think of how this would backfire badly is if the publisher decided to offset payments to modders by having an increased game purchase price (higher barrier to entry).

In response to post #24942159. #24942244, #24942979, #24943319, #24944114, #24944129, #24944354, #24945849, #24950174, #24952229, #24964969, #24965154, #24966094 are all replies on the same post. @Bullpcp Bethesda the publisher may disagree, I dunno about the devs themselves: Bethesda Softworks. Yes they might be 'fine' with it since the workshop exists at all in its poorly implemented state. I was quite frankly disappointed with their tacit approval of that system when they know more than ANY of us how Skyrim should be modded (buggy release notwithstanding). As I said, I'm not against an 'influx of new modders and mod-users'; I'm against an 'influx of new modders and mod-users because MONEY.' It goes both way y'see: we're spending too much focus on why modders do or don't deserve to sell mods and make money, when a huge part of the issue is how we're making a new world of strange untested products for an undefined market that will be forced to navigate it alone, and that when the only reasonable excuse to do that to them is for more profit.

In response to post #24942159. #24942244, #24942979, #24943319, #24944114, #24944129, #24944354, #24945849, #24950174 are all replies on the same post. Man this is so off-base it's not funny. So what if somehow we knew that only "8% of buyers used mods" it means nothing and has absolutely nothing to do with the system for paying for mods. Abosultely nothing. There is no 'potential customers' in that 92% segment. If those in that group wanted to install mods AT ALL then they would not be in that 92%. There's no way that they haven't decided to mod simply because 'they want to pay money'. I mean that just sounds ridiculous. In fact, I don't know why anybody wants that 92% to just take up modding for apparently extraneous reasons. I'm not saying that I want them to keep out of the community: I'm saying their introduction to modding shouldn't be some hyped up rapid shopping frenzy brought on by the likes of the Workshop/Bethesda/Valve. Other games would probably manage but the with likes of Skyrim these 'customers' will get themselves hurt - games will crash, saves will corrupt, buyers remorse will be heavy. The very thing that's so sweet about the community of the Nexus here isn't just the lively modding scene that pumps out awesome free mods, it's the robust userbase that works together tirelessly to make sure these mods even function in fragile waif of an engine like Gamebryo. They get the best experiences when, without any money down, can try some mods, get some help/find verbose instructions on using them, and discuss getting it to work with others who a quite simply always in the same boat as them.

In response to post #24873139. #24874159, #24874314, #24874474, #24874519, #24874634, #24874639, #24874729, #24874774, #24874924, #24874984, #24875019, #24875044, #24875074, #24875124, #24875219, #24875289, #24875334, #24875454, #24875484, #24875669, #24876774, #24876829, #24877709, #24877889, #24877969, #24878254, #24878299, #24878569, #24878604, #24878759 are all replies on the same post. I disagree. I don't see why my opinion shouldn't retain value simply because it criticises the system as a whole and makes clear my desire to go without it. I understand how it positions myself in the argument as 'either/or' rather than compromise but that's that. Yes it's a see-saw that goes both ways; government policy has been that decisive for generations and we could all benefit on compromise there, but unfortunately that still doesn't work because it then creates a new 'either/or' which is instead a 'enjoy compromise/suffer compromise'.

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409, #24866494, #24866644, #24866669, #24866709, #24866764, #24866984, #24867029, #24867119, #24867264, #24867654, #24868944, #24869089, #24869854, #24874009, #24874879 are all replies on the same post. Not only that but DoTA mods et. al. are not really 'mods' they're 'skins'. Yes for decades now they're practically synonymous, but the major difference is that a 'mod' tends to require the author to turn the game inside out in order to change gameplay and fit add things that didn't exist before, something that game developers either facilitate nicely, or tolerate begrudgingly. Skins though, are mostly innocuous; nothing but a palette swap or some new models overriding others, and in DoTA's case: fully compatible by the way of developers full facilitation. Even though I'm fully against stuff like DoTAs implementation, I'll admit that it should have a low rate of customer dissatisfaction thanks to the above. Skyrim however, would've tumbled and burned in ways well beyond the tribulations of this recent debacle.

In response to post #24873139. #24874159, #24874314, #24874474, #24874519, #24874634, #24874639, #24874729, #24874774, #24874924, #24874984, #24875019, #24875044, #24875074, #24875124, #24875219, #24875289, #24875334, #24875454, #24875484, #24875669, #24876774, #24876829, #24877709, #24877889, #24877969, #24878254, #24878299, #24878569 are all replies on the same post. Oh yeah that wouldn't go horribly wrong now would it?

In response to post #24808104. #24814359, #24816149, #24817744 are all replies on the same post. 1A) It's debatable whether or not consumers would consider the 'new versions' as a separate product and therefore free from being considered 'removed' or at least, if we want to be more accurate: the product (and transaction) on offer was modified, resulting in contempt from the original users. Your logic is fine, but doesn't take into account the very complex relationship between users and makers and the crux of the issue is that no matter how rudely consumers act, the amount of abuse they can hurl, the only ones in that relationship who stand to feel worse off/cheated/ripped off/whatever is the consumer, because their enjoyment of said product/service is co-dependant on its offering. In the gallery example, the feelings users had about these newly sold versions is akin to the artist making 'Mona Lisa' for the free gallery and then making 'New and improved Mona Lisa' for paid. Separate product or not, the free users feel short-changed because it feels like the value of the free product has been downplayed by the new product. This is really similar to the experience of buying say, a new computer and next month and newer better computer is available for the same price. But actually it's worse than that feeling because the original buy in is 'free' and no matter how much people try to avoid it; free is always a completely different kind of transaction/relationship than paid no matter if it's like 1 cent. In this case the issue was exacerbated by free mods that we were aware were getting updates and patiently waiting on, only to discover that our expectations had to be moved completely outside of what we could have predicted. 1B) Maybe. But that doesn't exclude their products or their decisions from criticism. Which is a real big part of the debacle here and elsewhere: While nobody would say they condone abuse/threats et. al. and the old line 'don't like it don't buy it' is thrown around, at the end of the day everybody is allowed to be concerned. A lot of the debate here focuses on the tired old concept of supposed 'entitlement' but what nobody will acknowledge is that it doesn't exist and that everybody who has paid/not paid and everybody is upset/not upset is what it is, and speculating on what people deserve/don't deserve and how much people might've/might've not made is meaningless. 2) see 1B) From a consumer point of view they have X to spend, and ascribe value to X at their own will, not by others. As selfish as it sounds, most don't care and won't care about the makers. The end product and its value as a transaction is the end of the bargain for an end-user. I'll make my personal bias known that I have never been in favour of modern gaming marketplaces such as free-to-play, MMOs with subs, microtransactions, or piecemeal DLC that may or may not be on the disc. I'm only interested in buying the full game if available and leave it at that. In the Skyrim's case, paying X value for the game is the initial transaction I (and other consumers possibly) are willing to accept. Users become comfortable with free modding as an extension of that value with no additional contemplation about value. Never forget that it's a laborious task to consider the value of something and then commit to purchase; free doesn't have this problem. I would prefer that I spend my time enjoying my game once purchased over continuing to shop. Changing this dynamic forces consumers to change their consideration of value and jump through mental (and financial) hoops to find the same experience. People blame the mod-authors because they are the primary point of contact with this system. And if you'd pardon my analogy, we often attack/treat the symptoms of a disease when we should be focusing on the underlying cause. People were mad at this system being introduced and changing their experience/community, and modders showing some kind of tacit approval of this system made them an 'enemy' in some peoples eyes - an enemy only exists when an ideology you dislike has someone fighting for it. Also fear: I didn't like this change and seeing modders use it, and the debacle that follwed confirmed by fears. Modders deserved less confrontation than Bethesda/Valve did, and I noticed that the upset was aimed at EVERYBODY; but alas, the modders, as simple individuals could weather it less. People will feel forced when they are faced with more complication, and the impression that they afford less choice. As many have already said: people would likely have felt compelled to buy by some mod dependency, or compelled to not-buy through a lack of quality assurance. If I was to make absolutes, I'd say nobody was forced to do anything (true), but everybody was forced to participate with this new system (also true). I'll agree with your last paragraph mostly, only caveat to say that speculating on what should have been done, or said in the past is kinda pointless. That and that I completely disagree that the level of underhanded quick-buck makers would have been a minority, only because every other relevant field has history to say otherwise. Mods being mostly free was a natural deterrent to shysters because they'd expect little to no return on investment.

In response to post #24808104. #24814359 is also a reply to the same post. Poor analogies both. People are angry at the painter because a 'free' painting in the gallery (mod) will leave that gallery. If they wanted to pay him for making a new work unassociated with the gallery (separate game) nobody could stop him or really complain. Your musician friend plays at a show for money, consumers have to pay money for a ticket. This is like how every single modder and user here must pay Bethesda for the game (a ticket) in order to use mods. If the audience was forced to tip your friend for their music in addition to the ticket there would be more contention and argument about value. Admittedly, in this example, Bethesda does not share the proceeds of that ticket, but that's not the consumers fault.

In response to post #24597829. #24598674, #24599279, #24599624, #24621674, #24622339 are all replies on the same post. "The truly greedy ones are people who blindly oppose this, who've never in their life donated a single penny to actually support a modder, all because they want to continue getting stuff for free at the expense of someone else's time and energy." Hahaha. Nobody is being greedy or entitled man. Nobody had to donate because it was never a charity. Sure people could if they wanted to, and I'm fine with that. However nobody has been stealing or taking or screwing over anybody until now. Nobody forced these modders to make anything and nobody could. Nobody needed to make free mods and nobody deserved free mods but look at that... this site was full of them. I did nothing but sit on my butt and free stuff appeared. No entitlement. No greed.

In response to post #24616159. #24616314, #24616399, #24616454, #24616704, #24616799, #24616909, #24617019, #24617144, #24617304, #24617354, #24617394, #24617519, #24618004, #24618149, #24618159, #24618169, #24618264, #24618289 are all replies on the same post. This is what I was afraid of happening. It not like I don't think modders deserve any compensation, or that they can't value their work financially. It's the transformation, the necessary consideration of it that every modder will now have and how that makes them a different kind of artist and a completely different member of a now fractured mod community. Before now I'd never heard nor thought of a modder 'in it for the money', that any of their mods were being advertised like product; it was always just something they made that would improve the game and the community was reciprocative in those efforts. Now those same modders will filling their own artistic visions of their mods with thought about how much they deserve for it, something they never had to, or wanted to do while they were lovingly making mods for fun/enjoyment/challenge etc. Everything was fine until now. Mods that were made, were made. Mods that weren't made, weren't. The community doesn't 'need' to give back, because they were never taking - modders were only ever giving, in a community of only ever giving.

In response to post #23711399. #23717184 is also a reply to the same post. It's not a mod. It's a remake. Using your logic, Skyrim is just a massive full-conversion mod for Oblivion.

Eh, I suppose I don't really have that much experience with forums, haven't encountered enough trolls to assure me they're that much of a problem, and those that I have seen made it clear they can't be stopped. So I'll defer to you guys experiences. One of the reasons I don't post much is because the forums does have an uncomfortable air about it. As necessary as you've shown it is to be strict, unfortunately lends to a negative PR. On topic though, no matter how many times you guys have said it, it does strike as somewhat crazy that changing one's username is that impossible. I've wanted to change mine for years.

How do you guys even figure that out? Being an ass is well enough reason to get banned, but if the multiple-account holder is doing no such thing they'd look pretty regular. (Not to mention surely, tenascious trolls could just make new single accounts?)

I think it's worth it, but damn it can get frustrating, the experience is just as breaking to me as it is the game. There's rarely a modder I would turn this frustration to and I'll sooner scour the internet for solutions than ask them to solve a problem I caused. Still I think it should be easier than this. Maybe it's because I'm less of a programmer than my neighbors, but it's just so stupid: every time it crashes, or stutters on scripts, that the Skyrim engine and our modern computers are just such wimpy bitches. In this day and age it's just laughable that a non-descriptive crash is the first reaction any problems. I know I sound all entitled but I damn well shouldn't have to cut down on my mods. The game shouldn't have the limitations it currently has: memory constraints, plugin limit, a slow and self-destructive scripting system. There are a lot of complex unknowns but that's all the more reason for incorporating betting logging, error and exception catching protocols. The worst of all is that for all the malleability provided within Skyrim and its modding tools, the system breaks down on the one thing that gamers cherish most - their save games. Bethesda should never have let that become a thing, to the point that they have to cover their own asses with a disclaimer band-aid. It's amazing that modders have made so many third-party tools to resolve these issues, but they shouldn't have needed to! It's good like a fun toy that keeps on giving, but bad like a toy with sharp edges you can hurt yourself on.

Steam reports about 461 hours. My first and only character. Not sure how much is accurate or the game idling/testing. That said I've probably spent about half as many hours just modding the game and trying to get it back up and running. I'm starting to resent this game and it's terrible nature. Never gotten to the dlc missions. I've got unending script lag problems and a spate of CTDs and I'm almost ready to throw in the towel.