Bethesda.net Mods is revising its port rules, we would like your feedback.

[Wolfstorm]

 

 

Bethesda.net struggles with two outdated reputations - mod theft and false reporting. Attempts to educate away these has had limited success, which is why we've moved towards more substantive change.

 

 

Would not be much easier to change the EULA for the SDKs of these games, and apply mandatory open-source to every nif and plugin? Or is there a legal impediment for it?

 

I think that would have the effect of dramatically reducing the number of folks willing to publicly release their mods......

 

 

 

Just make a pool among the userbase. Give them these two options:

 

Option A: everything becomes open source (nifs, plugins, etc) as long as the original authors/providers are mentioned in the credits. In this way, there could be many ports of the same mod, but the original authors would be able to endorse one of these as a "official" port.

 

Option B: every port is turned illegal, unless made by the original author/provider. In this way, many ports would be deleted, even when having permissions, unless the page is put into care of the original author (alongside the porter).

 

This would be much better than subjecting mod authors to constant humiliation and anxiety.

Some months ago I played a port of ORS for SE. When I turned back to the page (to check for possible updates), it was gone. The authors had previously given permission to the porter, but later revoked it, and the mod was removed. This kind of situation just shows how it is pointless to ask permission, so it is much better to have a yes or a no right on the start.

But then, I'm curious about why Bethesda choose this "proprietary" model, when in every other modding scene nobody cares. Was a legal issue? Was a design decision? Why they took this decision? Back in Oblivion days parlor drama was very isolated, today it is the norm, so we can pinpoint it to the Creation Club. But now CC content is free (through updates), so why Bethesda still keeps this model?

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

Bethesda.net struggles with two outdated reputations - mod theft and false reporting. Attempts to educate away these has had limited success, which is why we've moved towards more substantive change.

 

 

Would not be much easier to change the EULA for the SDKs of these games, and apply mandatory open-source to every nif and plugin? Or is there a legal impediment for it?

 

I think that would have the effect of dramatically reducing the number of folks willing to publicly release their mods......

 

 

 

Just make a pool among the userbase. Give them these two options:

 

Option A: everything becomes open source (nifs, plugins, etc) as long as the original authors/providers are mentioned in the credits. In this way, there could be many ports of the same mod, but the original authors would be able to endorse one of these as a "official" port.

 

Option B: every port is turned illegal, unless made by the original author/provider. In this way, many ports would be deleted, even when having permissions, unless the page is put into care of the original author (alongside the porter).

 

This would be much better than subjecting mod authors to constant humiliation and anxiety.

Some months ago I played a port of ORS for SE. When I turned back to the page (to check for possible updates), it was gone. The authors had previously given permission to the porter, but later revoked it, and the mod was removed. This kind of situation just shows how it is pointless to ask permission, so it is much better to have a yes or a no right on the start.

But then, I'm curious about why Bethesda choose this "proprietary" model, when in every other modding scene nobody cares. Was a legal issue? Was a design decision? Why they took this decision? Back in Oblivion days parlor drama was very isolated, today it is the norm, so we can pinpoint it to the Creation Club. But now CC content is free (through updates), so why Bethesda still keeps this model?

 

Do you remember the Giskard drama from the Oblivion days?

 

My take on it would be, once you give permission, that's it. It is irrevocable. No changing your mind at some future date.

 

If you force open permissions on folks, that have had closed permissions for a couple decades, there IS going to be backlash. Many folks would no longer release mods for beth games.... It would put a serious dent in the modding scene. Not a good idea.

[Arthmoor]

This would be much better than subjecting mod authors to constant humiliation and anxiety.

What humiliation and anxiety?

[Wolfstorm]

 

My take on it would be, once you give permission, that's it. It is irrevocable. No changing your mind at some future date.

 

 

Yes, but I was using a example from the Nexus to talk about Bethesda EULA.

For the Nexus, I think permissions should be permanent. Once set, they can't be changed. And there should be only yes or no, and not "ask", because this causes anxiety in many mod authors, and anxiety is bad for mod making.

 

In any case, you can always choose the second option, and have every port illegal. In both options, there would be no paperwork distracting the mod author and/or porter, no bureaucracy, and hence more freedom of movement for the author. Instead, what OP presented is even more paperwork than the usual, with screenshots of permissions being regarded as forgeries by default, causing even more conflict between mod authors, exposing them to public scrutiny, and of course, blocking many from releasing their content.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Wolfstorm

[HeyYou]

 

 

My take on it would be, once you give permission, that's it. It is irrevocable. No changing your mind at some future date.

 

 

Yes, but I was using a example from the Nexus to talk about Bethesda EULA.

For the Nexus, I think permissions should be permanent. Once set, they can't be changed. And there should be only yes or no, and not "ask", because this causes anxiety in many mod authors, and anxiety is bad for mod making.

 

In any case, you can always choose the second option, and have every port illegal. In both options, there would be no paperwork distracting the mod author and/or porter, no bureaucracy, and hence more freedom of movement for the author. Instead, what OP presented is even more paperwork than the usual, with screenshots of permissions being regarded as forgeries by default, causing even more conflict between mod authors, exposing them to public scrutiny, and of course, blocking many from releasing their content.

 

With the options of yes, no, and ask, all bases are covered. If an author doesn't wanna be bothered by requests, then just pick on. If they want to evaluate on a case by case basis, 'ask'.... Not that hard.

[DoctaSax]

I wager the instances of screenshots of PMs granting permission being forged are so few and far between they're not worth considering. What is, however, a common issue for moderation is a mod getting reported for not having permission, and then having to take into account that permission may've been granted in private. You hide it for the time being, but shoot off a PM to the re-uploader/porter giving them a chance to provide proof of that, which can take a while. In the meantime, things are up in the air. Also, when this proof is actually provided, you still need to make some kind of note that it exists, for the next time it's reported unnecessarily - and it may not even be you who's on call then. So I certainly get the practical concerns, combined with the reputation issue.

 

Still, imo, a private message giving permission is as good and legal a way of doing it as doing it in public, and saying you're going to disregard it looks a lot like disregarding a modder's explicit wish too. The condition that it needs to be in a certain location or format is one you impose on top of what the modder considers enough. As said, in the past it certainly was, and quite a few people aren't around to adjust to a new system just like that. At the very least, such a takedown shouldn't be framed as 'so-and-so uploaded something without permission', but only as 'so-and-so uploaded something without providing the details we asked for in the format we asked for' instead, then it's just a matter of house rules rather than anything else.

[Cartogriffi]

Hi folks, I wanted to thank everyone who gave their opinion on this sometimes contentious matter. Speaking personally, much of my work is platform/host agnostic, but I also do a lot of specific support for Bethesda.net Mods, so when those two don't line up it gets tricky. (And in this regard, "permissions" has been a big deal since I began supporting Bethesda.net Mods.)

 

Our goal for this discussion was to better untangle the matter, with a particular eye towards the future. However, many voicing their concerns have been especially worried about how we support older content, and that will be a big part of our internal deliberation.

 

Thanks again.