Quick updates to the site, money money money edition

[Rifleman556]

In response to post #24607469.

anreill wrote:

No because the modders have no legal play in the site other than their works being advertised here, and if the site was profiting off traffic and donations then it's doing nothing wrong because that's the purpose of the Host Site.

[troggleballs]

In response to post #24605154. #24607209, #24607279, #24607314, #24607404, #24607539 are all replies on the same post.

ff7legend wrote:

aimlesswander wrote: very true but valve/steam has caught on to the petition and a lot of the people who have signed it have had there accounts banned. 4 of my friends signed it and lost there accounts . there was no slander or foul language towards valve just going against them they got there accounts banned

CiderMuffin wrote: I find that hard to believe is the thing, that just sounds like the kind of stuff people say to make Valve look way worse.

toggsuk wrote: Seriously? Surely that is illegal, that just seems so wrong.

Rifleman556 wrote: That is illegal, if they can find no reason for being banned, then its a violation of Freedom of Information Act and their terms of service.

CiderMuffin wrote: The reason I'm calling BS on the account thing is, how does Valve know who signed and who didn't? How can you ban someone from steam when you don't know who signed the petition? Change.org doesn't display people's email addresses and unless you use your steam name they have literally no way of finding out if you signed or not. At most I can see people getting banned on community by overzealous mods but full account bans? I doubt it.

If this is true it's criminal.

And "gamergate" was the supposedly biggest gaming controversy last year! Hah! This year sure upped the ante and quickly.

[RRoan]

In response to post #24606974. #24607359 is also a reply to the same post.

Rifleman556 wrote:

jediakyrol wrote: ah...but to see if it really is yours, you have to download it...and to download it...you have to pay for it!

You do not have to "copyright" anything. Copyright is a right that you have over your creations from the moment that you create them. Patents and trademarks require registration, but copyright is just that: a RIGHT.

[LordAnorak]

In response to post #24605154. #24607209, #24607279, #24607314, #24607404, #24607539, #24607559 are all replies on the same post.

ff7legend wrote:

aimlesswander wrote: very true but valve/steam has caught on to the petition and a lot of the people who have signed it have had there accounts banned. 4 of my friends signed it and lost there accounts . there was no slander or foul language towards valve just going against them they got there accounts banned

CiderMuffin wrote: I find that hard to believe is the thing, that just sounds like the kind of stuff people say to make Valve look way worse.

toggsuk wrote: Seriously? Surely that is illegal, that just seems so wrong.

Rifleman556 wrote: That is illegal, if they can find no reason for being banned, then its a violation of Freedom of Information Act and their terms of service.

CiderMuffin wrote: The reason I'm calling BS on the account thing is, how does Valve know who signed and who didn't? How can you ban someone from steam when you don't know who signed the petition? Change.org doesn't display people's email addresses and unless you use your steam name they have literally no way of finding out if you signed or not. At most I can see people getting banned on community by overzealous mods but full account bans? I doubt it.

troggleballs wrote: If this is true it's criminal.

And "gamergate" was the supposedly biggest gaming controversy last year! Hah! This year sure upped the ante and quickly.

Most likely they had their posting privileges revokes in the discussions due to spamming the link. Spam is a very valid reason for a posting ban.

[anonownsyou]

In response to post #24607064.

bizzclaw wrote:

Except this has been mentioned to be explicitly NOT okay multiple times. Holding content hostage based on a donation goal (which is functionally what 'stretch goals' are) is the same thing as monetizing it. The goal here is to suggest that donations are welcome, but in no way necessary, and that mod quality and availability in no way hinges on said donations.

If money is their goal, they really ought to be jumping on Valve's bandwagon.

[Zaflart]

Dark0ne, time and time again, you've shown yourself to be quite the ethical gentleman. It's admirable of you, not to want to handle donations. Even more noble, to tell the truth about potentially stolen assets.

 

Mod authors do deserve funding, after all this is a capitalistic society and every little bit helps. However, I agree, the Valve/Bethesda partnership have taken a very misguided first step, in monetizing mods. This is just ugly, no matter what side-of-the-fence one happens to find themselves.

 

In the end, I doubt the modding community will be what it was just two days ago. Until brick and mortar law catches up with the, increasingly one-sided, internet, we'll only see more inept plans being made by those, who may not deserve to be, in control. When you hold all the cards, you can make the rules.

[Draugas]

After years of browsing Nexus, occasionally downloading something, then downloading more... and yes, blocking ads, I'm adding my support to the modding community I've enjoyed since the Doom days (all modders) with a lifetime sub to Nexus.

 

I'm afraid this Valvethesda debacle is only a social/economic experiment that is the tip of a nasty iceberg.

 

The next Bethesda game will limit modding to only those willing to put it up behind a paywall on Steam (initially?) so they get their cut. This is my prediction.

[Niklass]

Shouldn't the solution for team-based donations be to show donation options for each member with descriptions for his/her role?

[CiderMuffin]

In response to post #24605154. #24607209, #24607279, #24607314, #24607404, #24607539, #24607559, #24607699 are all replies on the same post.

ff7legend wrote:

aimlesswander wrote: very true but valve/steam has caught on to the petition and a lot of the people who have signed it have had there accounts banned. 4 of my friends signed it and lost there accounts . there was no slander or foul language towards valve just going against them they got there accounts banned

CiderMuffin wrote: I find that hard to believe is the thing, that just sounds like the kind of stuff people say to make Valve look way worse.

toggsuk wrote: Seriously? Surely that is illegal, that just seems so wrong.

Rifleman556 wrote: That is illegal, if they can find no reason for being banned, then its a violation of Freedom of Information Act and their terms of service.

CiderMuffin wrote: The reason I'm calling BS on the account thing is, how does Valve know who signed and who didn't? How can you ban someone from steam when you don't know who signed the petition? Change.org doesn't display people's email addresses and unless you use your steam name they have literally no way of finding out if you signed or not. At most I can see people getting banned on community by overzealous mods but full account bans? I doubt it.

troggleballs wrote: If this is true it's criminal.

And "gamergate" was the supposedly biggest gaming controversy last year! Hah! This year sure upped the ante and quickly.

Lordkabal26 wrote: Most likely they had their posting privileges revokes in the discussions due to spamming the link. Spam is a very valid reason for a posting ban.

Yea, but when people hear banning they think stuff like losing their account like you lose it if you cheat in a multiplayer game or steal items by hacking an account. Being banned from community isn't really the same. Edited April 24, 2015 by CiderMuffin

[FillipeMattos]

I am in favor of buying only mods that offer more hours of gameplay. An example is Falskaar. If a mod offers 8 hours minimum of gameplay in Skyrim, offering new and original content are already considered purchased. Edited April 24, 2015 by FillipeMattos