Publisher-Approved Paid Modding Policy

[MadMonkey119]

10 minutes ago, Czasior said:

The VC rules from Beth's page state that "Creations must be standalone, so it cannot depend on other community releases, free or paid." But I won't argue with you, Arthmoor. You have much more experience in the matter. Apparently, the official statement is misleading. 

But I understand you can publish the patches as free mods, not the Verified Creations.

What you are quoting is under the question "What kind of Creations can I sell?"

[Czasior]

Yeah, got it. Let me tell you how this all looks from my perspective. I patched a few mods with East Empire Expansion. No one forced me to do this. No one paid me to do this. No one asked me to do this. I did it because I wanted to. I did it because this VC is interesting. And I wanted to share it with other Nexus users. A few years ago we had a similar discussion regarding CC content. Because it was paid as well. I had some of them (then all of them when AE came out) and I patched them as well. Today we have a situation when patching Elianora's Myrwatch is good, because it's the "official" DLC, but patching Elianora's Shadetree Lodge is bad because it's VC. I assume she received/receives payment for both. And when after few years Todd decide to make some additional money, he'll release Skyrim Ultimate Edition with all VCs included making them "official DLCs". Then patching them will become valid again because they won't be paid mods anymore...

See you around people, I'm leaving the discussion. I don't think Nexus will change this policy, we need to adapt. So, instead of wasting time on further reading/commenting, I will spare it to make some new patches. For free mods this time.

[Zanderat]

This new policy seems reasonable.  I hope it is isn't abused.

[Pickysaurus]

Thanks for all your passionate feedback about the Publisher-Approved Paid Modding Policy. 

We've spent the morning catching up on all the comments overnight and have had a meeting internally to discuss them. 

Another update on this will follow later today or tomorrow. 

[Chernobylite12]

4 hours ago, henryetha said:

There is a difference. COTN and JK's are both free to use. The choice is ours from begin with, without having to first pay extra money in order to use one of those. When I choose not to use JK's, then it is because it's my choice, and not because of a paywall.

Dawnguard is an official DLC by Bethesda. It's to be expected that it becomes supported. Same with other games I might not have bought. And tbh, I would gladly pay another €15~€25 for an official DLC like Dawnguard or Dragonborn. But starting on microtransactions on this old game? Bethesda milking the cow from content made by other people — not even by themselves? While relying on the free modding community to fix their bugs? (bugs that have been known for years!) This is something, I don't want and will not support.

You're missing my point on a technicality, and then going on a tangent about Bethesda bad. Answer these questions: If the patch for a paid mod is itself free - why is nexus banning it, and how does that improve modding for users? 

 

As someone else pointed out - I can't have a patch for Lux posted for Elianora's house mod on nexus because the house mod is paid. Nor can I have a patch for it posted on CC store because it has dependencies.  Whereas until this decision i could have that patch on nexus with no harm to anyone.

 

The modding experience for users is objectively harmed by Nexus' stance on patches. No one is particularly fussed about demo mods, early access, or other paid variations themselves being banned. But saying a free patch is no longer allowed is performative politics by nexus regarding what they think modding should be. It's bad for me as a user, it's bad for mod authors as it disincentivises them using the CC store to earn money as a VC. Which in turn gives Bethesda a reason to change the eula to disallow 3rd party mod sites, as nexus has made a move that obviously will hurt beths in house platform.

[Blackread]

22 minutes ago, Chernobylite12 said:

You're missing my point on a technicality, and then going on a tangent about Bethesda bad. Answer these questions: If the patch for a paid mod is itself free - why is nexus banning it, and how does that improve modding for users? 

If you ask me, anything that promotes paid mods is bad for modding in the long run.

Quote

As someone else pointed out - I can't have a patch for Lux posted for Elianora's house mod on nexus because the house mod is paid. Nor can I have a patch for it posted on CC store because it has dependencies.  Whereas until this decision i could have that patch on nexus with no harm to anyone.

Of course you can have it posted on Bethesda.net. Where's the rule that says free creations can't have dependencies? Or did you plan to charge money for the patch?

[Chernobylite12]

3 minutes ago, Blackread said:

If you ask me, anything that promotes paid mods is bad for modding in the long run.

Of course you can have it posted on Bethesda.net. Where's the rule that says free creations can't have dependencies? Or did you plan to charge money for the patch?

Paid mods are here to stay whether or not you or I like it. Best thing we can do is encourage "good" paid mods vs crappy cash grabs. 

 

Regarding posting of patches - my understanding is that anything on the CC store cannot have dependencies outside the CC store.

[henryetha]

Quote

If the patch for a paid mod is itself free - why is nexus banning it

Simple: Because it can and will be abused, unless they manually verify them first. Those patches do require the paid mod, after all.

Other than that, you'll have the legal issue, as Nexus has little (or no) control concerning permissions of these mods. And them being a “product”, this is a little different to other mods that are uploaded on a 3rd party site. 

Quote

You're missing my point on a technicality,

I do? Which point exactly is it?

Quote

Whereas until this decision i could have that patch on nexus with no harm to anyone.

And this is where you are fundamentally wrong. The implementation of paid mods already did harm the community. Treating them as normal, normalizes Bethesda's fancy business model. It's not even just the money issue, I already mentioned before. It's also the audacity, calling these mods “official content”. You won't believe, how many people are convinced, that these paid mods would be Bethesda content, and thus treat them superior to other mods, just because they are free. After years of work and support for free mods, this must be like a slap in the face.

[Remiros]

11 hours ago, elpuertorro said:

They do, they offer the Premium services, no one forces it but it's offered to help the site in exchange for somelittle perks, and again they are reacting to rules set by Bethesda not because they just woke up and decided to do it, so if you feel it's punishment then go question the ones causing it, and not Nexus for wanting to survive.

The Nexus is the biggest modding platform that has ever existed, holding what is basically an iron-tight monopoly on video game mods, which is now seemingly getting enforced even further by this strange change in their TOS. There's absolutely no reason to believe that this site isn't vastly profitable. Free patches for paid content that is comparatively niche anyways is not going to make a dent. The Nexus will survive, don't worry.

[Khundiann]

14 minutes ago, Chernobylite12 said:

Answer these questions: If the patch for a paid mod is itself free - why is nexus banning it, and how does that improve modding for users? 

Because it makes no sense for Nexusmods to host files that can only be used along with masters of paid mods.

24 minutes ago, Chernobylite12 said:

The modding experience for users is objectively harmed by Nexus' stance on patches. No one is particularly fussed about demo mods, early access, or other paid variations themselves being banned. But saying a free patch is no longer allowed is performative politics by nexus regarding what they think modding should be. It's bad for me as a user, it's bad for mod authors as it disincentivises them using the CC store to earn money as a VC. Which in turn gives Bethesda a reason to change the eula to disallow 3rd party mod sites, as nexus has made a move that obviously will hurt beths in house platform.

Modding has existed for decades without significant problems, it's only when greedy corps got involved that the community got split up like this. To put this situation on Nexusmods is just hilarious to me, they're just rolling with the punches. There was never a missunderstanding about what modding is, now it gets flipped into "what Nexusmods thinks it should be". Nexusmods holds to these core values, and I commend them for that. One who makes money from his mods can put in the work himself to patch and set up his own distribution channels for patches and fixes.