Trying to understand

[InfernalAmmo]

I Propose A Theory: Deleting mods allow for the destruction of evidence to be used against a creator avoiding legal ramifications. Big Gov has stepped in, threatening Nexus to reign in activity such as illegal file sharing or financial evasion. So stopping the deletion of content is a means to hold creators of illegal content accountable. Of course this is just a theory and it could be that the people in charge of the Nexus are just top tier a-holes.

[Deleted31005User]

I Propose A Theory Too: Its all about the money:

 

1. Vortex new feature: MOD LISTS!

2. Premium for easier use on Vortex

3. Don't allow mods to be deleted so mod lists will ALWAYS be available, given even more value to Vortex, more incentive for people to get that Premium.

4. Increase Premium price

5. Implement that "EDIT" in the TOS and do whatever you want with all the mods in case you get another fancy idea in the future

6. profit ! Modders can no longer take away their mods, its all in Nexus' hands, and now they can even edit the mods, ding ding.

 

Oh wait, that's not a theory, 80% of what I said is already confirmed Dark (Robin) himself.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Guest

[WileCoyote68]

@Ac3s I don't think that is only a theory. Nexus has at least 2 competitors who already offer Mod Packs. In a longer term, Nexus has no choice. They must catch up with their competitors. No one today can say with any certainty how Bethesda will handle mods when The Elder Scrolls VI is released. But I am absolutely certain that Bethesda is thinking of it. For this reason, it is absolutely illogical for me that the Nexus approach to this subject is so unprofessional. As Arthmoor pointed out in one of his previous comments: If Microsoft and Bethesda think about the subject well enough, it could usher in Nexodus very quickly

[Adonsa]

Greetings,

I'm just a gamer, not yet a mod author/developer.

 

I'm concerned that some desirable mods will be have to be removed (before the deadline) and that

mod ownership or control will belong to the Nexus Corporation. As a programmer (not a modder),

I've had copyrighted works become public domain, and so I respect mod developers

who work hard and desire to retain their copyright be it commercial or copyrighted freeware.

 

 

What's going to become of expressed or implied copyrights after the change happens?

 

If the Nexus Corporation is going to pay mod developers, as W4 or 1099 employees, then,

of course the copyrights absolutely belong to the employer.

 

Okay, if mod developer John Doe publishes a mod and annotates "Copyrighted by John Doe" then

another developer shouldn't violate that copyright. However, if and that John Doe cannot

remove it from a web host, does that mod become Public Domain from then on? Will mod

developers be required to cede any claims to copyright over to the Nexus Corporation?

 

If John Doe paints a painting and (with permission) hangs it on a wall in a museum. Time passes

and he takes it down and walks out the door. If the museum curator padlocks it behind glass,

and refuses to let the painter have it back, isn't this unethical or worse? Or, painter would be

told, before he walks in the door, that his painting is no longer his, even if the museum curator

gives him no consideration in return. Then, it's ethical, because the painter will know beforehand

that he's giving up all rights to his painting.

 

Thank you.

[Adonsa]

Greetings,

Re: Collections.

 

Dear Website moderator, can you provide a sample of how collections

will be presented to users, how they will appear on a web page?

 

Maybe a "collections simulator," or just a video of how a web page

with collections will function, would be nice to see.

Thank you.

[WileCoyote68]

Which painter would be so stupid to surrender all rights to the museum without any compensation, just so that the painted picture can be exhibited there? Let me guess: None!

[showler]

 

i asked in a few posts that if a list is just a list and something on that list is no longer available, why does it break? after all, a list is just a list.

The post where BigBizKit said "it's just a list" made it pretty clear he was answering a question about "opt-out". It was never meant to be an explanation regarding deletions. It was simply a response about how the mod downloading part of the Collections system worked.

 

in that situation - whatever you uploaded would be deleted.

 

oh but wait a minute, it is said that if something is deleted, it breaks the back end. hence the whole "we'll archive it instead" approach.

They never said it breaks the back end. Right from the very first post it said that extensive deletions were bad for the back end systems they are building, but that individual deletions would be necessary at times.

[Guest deleted34304850]

some fanboi nonsense he plucked out of the sky

thanks for your insight.

Edited July 18, 2021 by 1ae0bfb8

[HeyYou]

 

While we allow for some files to be bundled with a collection (this is intended for tool-generated output files like e.g. LOD generated by DynDOLOD for Skyrim), a collection does not “contain” any mods, instead it acts more like a reference list for Vortex to know which file from a mod page it needs to download, what installer options to choose, how to resolve mod conflicts, and how to arrange your load order.

That's from the news article. Apparently, some 'additional' information WILL be included with the 'list'. Does that include things like a bashed patch? I would think the whole 'conflict resolution' thing would require it. (also for things like leveled lists, etc.)

[Zanderat]

Here is a dumb question. Say a user starts with a basic "best of SSE" type collection. Then they add individual mods to it. Is it still a "collection" at that point?