Publisher-Approved Paid Modding Policy

[showler]

6 minutes ago, Kant3n said:

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.

On this topic I am only discussing why Nexus Mods made a distinction between Creation Club content, which they classified as official DLC, and Verified Creators Creations, which they have classified as unofficial paid content.

5 minutes ago, Chernobylite12 said:

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.

I agree with you, but I can also understand at least some of the reasoning for their decision.  I just think it's the wrong decision and hope they will change their minds before all the patches get lost or scattered across who knows how many sites.

[showler]

9 minutes ago, elpuertorro said:

IYou 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?

So, should we just assume that you completely missed that most of the complaints in this thread come from authors of Verified Creators Creations and from authors of patches for those VC Creations?

As in, literally the people who did ALL THE WORK which you have done none of?

[Korodic]

Some of this makes perfect sense from a proactive stance to abuse, some of this I am really not happy with. In particular:

• Patches for/Dependencies on Paid Mods: We will not allow any patches or addons for user-generated content that requires payment to unlock (this specifically excludes DLCs offered by the developer - including DLCs that bundle items previously sold individually such as Skyrim's Anniversary Upgrade). Equally, if a mod uploaded to the site requires a paid mod to function, it will not be permitted. 

You are guaranteeing that there will be no incentivized patching for Verified Creations as Bethesda offers none, which is counterintuitive to your goal of "Make Modding Easy". Yeah, modding is difficult, in most cases it wasn't even meant to be done. I don't see how this new obstacle should make patches be less accessible and visible to users who want them, especially since there is transparency in listing the requirements. The Nexus still gets it's clicks/ad revenue and nobody is lied to about what the content is. Patching is a hit or miss thing, but even more likely to be maintained for paid content which it adds value to.

I've been a frequent user to the Nexus for over a decade, proudly, and it really doesn't feel great not to be supported by the Nexus when we are offered an official opportunity to elevate ourselves as content creators. I still had plans to create more free content, now idk, or at least idk if I should post it to the Nexus.

[showler]

Man, this thread is going to be a hell of a thing for Picky and the others to wake up to.  Apologies if you find this before you had your morning coffee.

[robertgk2017]

Gonna be honest, i think blocking patches to Verified Creations is one of the single worst decisions ever made.  I could understand blocking VCs in collections, that just makes sense as it wouldn't really work either way.  But patches, im sorry thats just stupid.   I get the modding should be free thing, and i personally would agree with that.  But there are some VCs that are actually worth the money, and if someone wants to make patches between them and other mods, they should be allowed to host them on Nexus.  Particularly since the vast majority of the users that would need said patches are going to be Nexus' own users.

[Wudugat]

Literally everything makes sense except the patches. I would 100% reconsider the patch ordeal, why are we making modding even harder? It makes no sense to remove patches for users who want to be able to use content together. In general, this topic needs a lot of clarification too, it is to vague. 

[theholographic]

13 hours ago, Pickysaurus said:

Patches for/Dependencies on Paid Mods: We will not allow any patches or addons for user-generated content that requires payment to unlock (this specifically excludes DLCs offered by the developer - including DLCs that bundle items previously sold individually such as Skyrim's Anniversary Upgrade). Equally, if a mod uploaded to the site requires a paid mod to function, it will not be permitted. 

What about developer-made mods/dlcs listed in a mod store? A while ago Bethesda released a free update for Starfield containing some parts of a faction quest and gear and the second part of it (Trackers Alliance: The Vulture) is purchasable via creations menu, not steam. 

[MikeBreezy92]

1 minute ago, theholographic said:

What about developer-made mods/dlcs listed in a mod store? A while ago Bethesda released a free update for Starfield containing some parts of a faction quest and gear and the second part of it (Trackers Alliance: The Vulture) is purchasable via creations menu, not steam. 

That's fine but everything else that's not made by Bethesda can't be uploaded.

[vortexposer]

Someone likely informed Microsoft that they didn't want their assets to be legally redistributable/patched anywhere other than on bnet, where it can be more easily moderated by owner vs some random 3rd party website (from MS perspective)
And legal dept have now taken appropriate steps to ensure those protections
 

Edited yesterday at 06:13 AM by vortexposer

[Kant3n]

16 minutes ago, vortexposer said:

Someone likely informed Microsoft that they didn't want their assets to be legally redistributable/patched anywhere other than on bnet - where it can be more easily moderated by owner vs some random 3rd party website (from MS perspective)
And legal dept have now taken appropriate steps to ensure those protections
 

First of all none of this is true so please don't use the word "likely". Second of all Bethesda games are not on BNet.