Publisher-Approved Paid Modding Policy

[Chernobylite12]

1 minute ago, showler said:

It's over-cautious to a degree I think is excessive.   However, when you think about the fact that Nexus Mods exists in a reality where any game publisher can send a cease and desist at pretty much any time and force NM to pull all the mods for all their games you can sort of see why they're cautious.

In this case it seems to be about being able to say "Hey, we explicitly made this against the rules for the site and we actively worked to moderate against it, so there's no reason to blame us if you have a problem with any of the content on our site."

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. 

[Chernobylite12]

4 minutes ago, elpuertorro said:

Actually against Bethesdas TOS and that's what everyone is ignoring Bethesda set the precedent for the rule NOT Nexus, so to counter act and protect us, Well if you make a patch for something a end user has to buy or pay to access it behind a paywall then NO, go host it somewhere else!!

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.

Quote

 

 

[showler]

It's targeted in that Beth's paid mod store is probably the biggest and most well-known example of a company altering their policy to allow for paid mods and therefore also the biggest example of patches for those paid mods being uploaded to Nexus Mods.

But the policy is explicitly applied to all examples of paid mods of this type, not just Bethesda's.

As for why it didn't apply to Creation Club mods created prior to the Verified Creator program: If Bethesda can sell those paid mods as a DLC bundle then that means Bethesda owns them.  The new service is different.  It's the mod author controlling the sales.  That's why they chose that distinction.

[showler]

2 minutes ago, Chernobylite12 said:

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.

They're just going to quote back the same content that they clearly misunderstood.  There is no chance of them accepting the possibility that they are the one making the mistake.

[Kant3n]

3 minutes ago, showler said:

It's targeted in that Beth's paid mod store is probably the biggest and most well-known example of a company altering their policy to allow for paid mods and therefore also the biggest example of patches for those paid mods being uploaded to Nexus Mods.

But the policy is explicitly applied to all examples of paid mods of this type, not just Bethesda's.

As for why it didn't apply to Creation Club mods created prior to the Verified Creator program: If Bethesda can sell those paid mods as a DLC bundle then that means Bethesda owns them.  The new service is different.  It's the mod author controlling the sales.  That's why they chose that distinction.

The mod author does not "control the sales", it is literally Bethesda's service and the author must be approved to list it there.

[showler]

Once approved an author can choose whether to put something up for sale or release it for free.  And I'm pretty sure they have control over the price and can even remove it from sale.

It's the difference between Beth owning the mod and the author owning the mod.

[Kant3n]

Just now, showler said:

Once approved an author can choose whether to put something up for sale or release it for free.  And I'm pretty sure they have control over the price and can even remove it from sale.

It's the difference between Beth owning the mod and the author owning the mod.

No, it's an sanctioned distribution of content by the first party publisher of the game. Conflating that with people trying to sell their stuff on the gray market is completely different. Keeping paid mod dependencies out of collections makes complete perfect sense, it's Nexus's sudden war on compatibility patches that is getting them the much-deserved pushback in this thread.

[Chernobylite12]

1 minute ago, showler said:

Once approved an author can choose whether to put something up for sale or release it for free.  And I'm pretty sure they have control over the price and can even remove it from sale.

It's the difference between Beth owning the mod and the author owning the mod.

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.

[elpuertorro]

11 minutes ago, showler said:

NOBODY is saying they are banning patches for free mods.  We're upset that they are banning patches for Paid mods that make those paid mods work with free mods.

If you can't keep up with what the complaint is, then stop arguing about it.

I can keep up, so lets see.
You are saying that all this crying is for some FREE stuff that no one owes you, you didn't pay for, you don't do anything to provide it to others or contribute, yet want to tell the ones who do, how to do it so it's convenient for YOU?
Because as you can see, I'm ok with it, as many other users  are, and many others just like you don't agree and we will have the ones that don't give a crap. so in the end it's Nexus site, they run it as they sit fit, don't like it, you are free to voice your opinion, and that's it.
At the end it's their decision and choice, as it is yours to keep buying mods in the Bethesda's store that then are going to need patches and  expect Nexus to be so cool and just do it because you say so.....
Time to eat... wow thanks everyone, you all made me work up an appetite!!  
 

[GoblinHours69]

2 hours ago, elpuertorro said:

Exactly what I quoted, in a different way we are saying the same thing, well beth and whoever that answer is from that you posted:

How is it not the same?

I'm not bothering to read any more pages of your misunderstanding but in case no one has pointed it out you're conflating dependencies with optional patches.

It is against the rules for VC's to be dependent on another mod, paid or free.

It is not against the rules for patches, whether they're QoL, compatibility or whatever to be released by the creator or another creator with permission.

It's pretty obvious why such a rule exists, it wouldn't be particularly cool to pay for a creation and find out you need to get a script extender or a bunch of libraries or some big overhaul to use it, it also prevents obvious abusive attempts to monetize patches etc. on their platform.

You could literally just browse the bethesda.net mod libraries for like 5 minutes to see this in action and see how wrong you are. There is a VC on the starfield creations that enables visible holstered weapons for example, there is a free mod that adds extra weapons to that VC. This is perfectly fine, this patch would funnily enough, not be allowed on NM under these new rules.

As for the split, until you've put in the work and become a VC you don't really get to bang on about how fair or not it is, even if you did have the real numbers, which you don't.

It's fair enough for a great many of us to be happy to be a part of already so kindly keep it to yourself.

 

edit: I'm even going to go the trouble linking the creations I'm citing:

1. Starfield Creations - Magnetic Weapon Holsters - Paid Mod

2. Starfield Creations - Magnetic Weapon Holsters: Shattered Space - Free compatibility patch

Note that 1 does not *depend* on 2 and as such neither breaks the ToS, if 2 however were attempted to be sold, it would not be approved as it *depends* on 1.

This is what you are apparently confused about, you're welcome.