Steam Service Providers, and some how needing to clarify the Nexus stance again

[KaiserDeathIV]

i said it often and i will say it again....

 

modders dont deserve to be paid. dont get me wrong, they are all doing an awesome job, but modding is a hobby and not a job.

 

and saying that modders have bills too and should get paid is also nonesense. i have bills too. i am working hard for my hobbies too. wheres my money now?

 

and as i said in my other thread: in my eyes modding will be only for the rich in the future. people with not so much money like me cant use all mods then while people with more money can afford all mods and so have a wider range of mods to choose from. before the paid mods, everyone, if poor or rich, could use all mods.

Edited April 27, 2015 by KaiserDeathIV

[WightMage]

In response to post #24711234. #24716534 is also a reply to the same post.

twisted630 wrote:

Arendella wrote: If you need money for all of those things, making mods should not be a source of revenue to begin with.

There are better jobs out there that pays more than modding, and as for the price set on Steam, its not even worth it. People keep trying to throw real life situations to justify paying for mods, but its weak and doesn't work when you can get a better career and job that pays more. Working Fast Food would make more than what you would sell at Steam period.

Someone posted the breakdown here earlier, but here's a concise version:

In order to get any money from SW, your mod must make $400 in sales.

After $400, you will be paud 25%, or $100.

You don't get a payment immediately- payments are sent every 3 months.

In other words, unless you either make an exceptional, expensive mod that many hundreds of people buy, and choose to pay the SUGGESTED amount, not minimum, or unless you make hundreds of cheap mods, each of which alone makes over 400 in sales, you are making less than a fast food worker at minimum wage for the same amount of work.

I don't even need to go into a breakdown on how much a burger flipper makes. Even at 20 hours at 7 bucks an hour, the math speaks for itself.

[Kalaness]

In response to post #24716989.

Arendella wrote:

That's messed up on so many levels. When I first saw this, I was like "Yays! Maybe Modders might actually get paid for their hard work." But the more this delved into the more this becomes a worse and worse idea for the community as a whole.

[Kepesk]

All I know is I'm not buying mods. I don't have a lot of money and sometimes mods don't work on my system and it's no fault of the author, so I'm not going to buy something that just might not work.

[sunshinenbrick]

Just been hanging out in the Steam forums, which I never normally do, and it's a s***storm in there...

 

Refunds get you banned apparently!!

 

Chase the money ha ha ha *nom* *nom* *nom*

 

What an absolute shambles!

 

EDIT: Then went to the Beth forums and the aggression from the moderators their is awful. Real problem is that these are paying customers and they are being locked out just for asking questions on something that has been forced upon them.

Edited April 27, 2015 by sunshinenbrick

[Deleted3507349User]

In response to post #24716989. #24717894 is also a reply to the same post.

Arendella wrote:

Kalaness wrote: That's messed up on so many levels. When I first saw this, I was like "Yays! Maybe Modders might actually get paid for their hard work." But the more this delved into the more this becomes a worse and worse idea for the community as a whole.

I'll repost what I posted yesterday...let's just see what's looking correct, shall we?

***********************
Posted Yesterday, 11:19 AM

The future of modding:

Some will do it for the money, some will do it freely for the love of modding.


Coming soon:

Free mods will be like freeware apps are now, pale shadows of what paid software is. Pirating of mods will be a thing (it already is, in fact). Paid mods will be subject to DRM. At the very least some games will block mods that aren't subjected to the same DRM the game itself is.


A bit farther out:

The only free mods will be for free games. No mods for DRM games will be free, at the very least players will be forced into a subscription model.

There will be no legal legitimate middle ground, except for paid games that do not utilize DRM. Those games will be in the extreme minority.
****************************

I would say the only solution from Bethesda's and Steam's perspective to the problem linked above is DRM for mods.

[carlocgc]

In response to post #24682284. #24682924, #24688774, #24689099, #24689669, #24712014, #24712544, #24712869 are all replies on the same post.

Acidbuk wrote:

sunshinenbrick wrote: Good points. What I am trying to find out is where the morality, the respect in all of this.

I asked a question earlier but I think it got lost among the longer posts.

When the first Beth sdk was released was it just a big TOC or was there a friendly dialouge between the developer and community?

My reason for asking is becasue the way that the pay for mods has been rolled out is very cruel to the authors who made them because they made them out of the good will and love of games, with I imagine the blessing of Beth... I mean they have had some 10 years to take legal action.

My point is that this is a nasty way to intrduce their customers to the developing world of digital copyright. Why is there no communication from them? Why not talk to their audiences like adults as let's face it, most of us saw something like this was inevitable. But why oh why so aggressively? Or just plain clumsy??

Acidbuk wrote: Bethesda has a history of just dropping the creation-kit with an EULA that when you crunch down the legal speak boils to "Go Nuts. Just don't charge anyone for it". which is standard fare for most SDK's from pretty much any Developer that puts one out. Oh I agree with you, this is an absolutely brutal way to introduce a community that has co-operated for years, to the concept of digital copyright and licensing. licensing is not something anyone really wants to do, its one of those necessary evils which come part and parcel of Software development and its amazingly awesome that as a community we (collectively Users and Creators) have been able to avoid using them, instead using an informal "Please don't steal my stuff just ask if you want to use it" unfortunately as this moves forward, we are almost certainly going to see the term "licensing" as things formalise up between paid and Free mods and what can and cannot be used. I suspect Bethesda will keep quiet and ride out the storm of malcontent until things dye down, then they'll come out with some PR speak about 'We are Bethesda value your input on the recent opportunities for monetization of mods, and we are listening to your feed back and moving forward together with the community'

As for why now? that I couldn't tell you., I would kind of get it if they did this for Fallout 4 or TES-6 whenever that comes out because your dealing with a blank slate. but injecting this into an already vibrant and established ecosystem? is like introducing an invasive plant species. Everyone is scrambling - I really have Sympathy for Robin/Dark0ne right now, Guy had to cancel a holiday to deal with the fallout (no pun intended) from this, between Mod authors taking their mods down to migrate to the workshop, other mod authors scrambling to take their mods down because they are afraid someone will take their work and put IT on the workshop for money as their own (DMCA's are no easy thing), and users trying to download as many mods as they can in panic in case their favourite mods go Pay-Wall. its got to be just a little bit insane, investing all that time and money in the infrastructure upgrade was forward thinking. just not in the way he would have liked I guess.

I do find Valves/Bethesda TOC's morally questionable, in particular how its al-edged Chesko was told by a Valve employee that it was okay to use someone else's free content and include that and charge of it and not have to ask any permission what so-ever, that is not Chesko fault. However I find the concept of Early Access Mods Morally dubious - Early access it and of itself is tittering on the brink, paying for Early Access mods is so far down the slippery slope that I doubt you could even see the top any more.

sunshinenbrick wrote: I think they did it before the realease of the new games so all this stuff thats happening now will have (in their hopeful opinion) died down by then.

Jake_Dragon wrote: Sorry posted in the wrong place

Acidbuk wrote: But that's the thing yeah. it doesn't make sense from a business of physiological perspective. it they were trying to warm people up to the idea of paid mods its far easier to do warm people up to it on a new Product, and with an existing one. For Better or worse Most people people are psychologically firm with the idea mods should be free. - Right or wrong, I'm just saying that's how it is because its "the way its always been". so trying to change that with a new Product is much much better than trying to Bludgeon it into an existing IP like Skyrim because there is a LOT of fear, a whole big lot of it heaped in large ominous spades, because people are afraid of losing their favourite mods. or because of the interconnected nature of mods - having to buy one mod to play another one. its a rabbit warren than don't end.

. I don't think they would have had anywhere near the backlash if they'd made this change for Fallout 4 or TES6 because people aren't as .psychologically invested in the idea of Mods being free, so long as Bethesda had given assurances that they'd not be introducing this retro-actively for other games. people would have taken them at their word and it would have been far less turmoil. now, that trust is broken and Good Will is something you cannot buy, its earned,

sunshinenbrick wrote: I think they need the people on the Nexus (and other free communities) on board more than they would like to let on... the reason? Cuz Fallout 4 and Elder Scrolls VI will more than likely be glitchy unoptimised games. The younger, less experienced console generation who are now moving back to the PC market will be lost, have to start from scratch... without the Nexus, SKSE LOOT and NMM teams, who will at the end of the day be the people who will be driving this whole paid modding "revolution" forward.

This does bring me to the wider point though that there is a conflict of interest here. The way it used to be is that we paid ~£45 for our games... they had massive potential and were pretty amazing but (as someone put it earlier) not even close to the experience gained through using mods... in many cases the game was unplayable, remember the whole Skyboost Application Layer scenario. But that price paid for everything, tools, games sdk all in a nice package. What seems to be forgotten is modders will not be excempt from having to pay for other mods that are not their own, including possible software licences that are not owned by Bethesda.

The point is modders were more inclined to work on these because Bethesda were under a legal obligation to provide a working game. Now, not necessarily so. While there is potential for modders to have some well earned revenue, there will be this playing field where the responsibilities between developer and modder become even more blurry than they are now. There has already been cases of modders complaining they now have to spend more time watching out for copyright and technical issues than they used to because there seems to already be little effort from the developers end in regards to moderation and quality control. Welcome to the slippery slope of mission creep, subscription and thus, recurring costs.

EDIT: I do not think the problem is so much that a modder should be allowed to charge, what is the issue is exactly how, how much and whether they are being exploited or not.

hangman04 wrote: the only think they Beth could do, the least, is to invest a fraction of the revenues in the functionality of the CK, cause the better their sdk is, the greater the possibility to make complex mods, which can be charged to a dlc level and can probably attract professional groups, small indie studios etc.

On the other hand it is possible on long term that this new way of earning money may attract other distributors that may want to compete Valve, and which way is best to compete than giving the author a better cut of the deal.

If you can sell a mod don't you become a developer and not a modder. I mean whats the difference between a developer and a modder? the pay check right?

[sunshinenbrick]

In response to post #24682284. #24682924, #24688774, #24689099, #24689669, #24712014, #24712544, #24712869, #24718274 are all replies on the same post.

Acidbuk wrote:

sunshinenbrick wrote: Good points. What I am trying to find out is where the morality, the respect in all of this.

I asked a question earlier but I think it got lost among the longer posts.

When the first Beth sdk was released was it just a big TOC or was there a friendly dialouge between the developer and community?

My reason for asking is becasue the way that the pay for mods has been rolled out is very cruel to the authors who made them because they made them out of the good will and love of games, with I imagine the blessing of Beth... I mean they have had some 10 years to take legal action.

My point is that this is a nasty way to intrduce their customers to the developing world of digital copyright. Why is there no communication from them? Why not talk to their audiences like adults as let's face it, most of us saw something like this was inevitable. But why oh why so aggressively? Or just plain clumsy??

Acidbuk wrote: Bethesda has a history of just dropping the creation-kit with an EULA that when you crunch down the legal speak boils to "Go Nuts. Just don't charge anyone for it". which is standard fare for most SDK's from pretty much any Developer that puts one out. Oh I agree with you, this is an absolutely brutal way to introduce a community that has co-operated for years, to the concept of digital copyright and licensing. licensing is not something anyone really wants to do, its one of those necessary evils which come part and parcel of Software development and its amazingly awesome that as a community we (collectively Users and Creators) have been able to avoid using them, instead using an informal "Please don't steal my stuff just ask if you want to use it" unfortunately as this moves forward, we are almost certainly going to see the term "licensing" as things formalise up between paid and Free mods and what can and cannot be used. I suspect Bethesda will keep quiet and ride out the storm of malcontent until things dye down, then they'll come out with some PR speak about 'We are Bethesda value your input on the recent opportunities for monetization of mods, and we are listening to your feed back and moving forward together with the community'

As for why now? that I couldn't tell you., I would kind of get it if they did this for Fallout 4 or TES-6 whenever that comes out because your dealing with a blank slate. but injecting this into an already vibrant and established ecosystem? is like introducing an invasive plant species. Everyone is scrambling - I really have Sympathy for Robin/Dark0ne right now, Guy had to cancel a holiday to deal with the fallout (no pun intended) from this, between Mod authors taking their mods down to migrate to the workshop, other mod authors scrambling to take their mods down because they are afraid someone will take their work and put IT on the workshop for money as their own (DMCA's are no easy thing), and users trying to download as many mods as they can in panic in case their favourite mods go Pay-Wall. its got to be just a little bit insane, investing all that time and money in the infrastructure upgrade was forward thinking. just not in the way he would have liked I guess.

I do find Valves/Bethesda TOC's morally questionable, in particular how its al-edged Chesko was told by a Valve employee that it was okay to use someone else's free content and include that and charge of it and not have to ask any permission what so-ever, that is not Chesko fault. However I find the concept of Early Access Mods Morally dubious - Early access it and of itself is tittering on the brink, paying for Early Access mods is so far down the slippery slope that I doubt you could even see the top any more.

sunshinenbrick wrote: I think they did it before the realease of the new games so all this stuff thats happening now will have (in their hopeful opinion) died down by then.

Jake_Dragon wrote: Sorry posted in the wrong place

Acidbuk wrote: But that's the thing yeah. it doesn't make sense from a business of physiological perspective. it they were trying to warm people up to the idea of paid mods its far easier to do warm people up to it on a new Product, and with an existing one. For Better or worse Most people people are psychologically firm with the idea mods should be free. - Right or wrong, I'm just saying that's how it is because its "the way its always been". so trying to change that with a new Product is much much better than trying to Bludgeon it into an existing IP like Skyrim because there is a LOT of fear, a whole big lot of it heaped in large ominous spades, because people are afraid of losing their favourite mods. or because of the interconnected nature of mods - having to buy one mod to play another one. its a rabbit warren than don't end.

. I don't think they would have had anywhere near the backlash if they'd made this change for Fallout 4 or TES6 because people aren't as .psychologically invested in the idea of Mods being free, so long as Bethesda had given assurances that they'd not be introducing this retro-actively for other games. people would have taken them at their word and it would have been far less turmoil. now, that trust is broken and Good Will is something you cannot buy, its earned,

sunshinenbrick wrote: I think they need the people on the Nexus (and other free communities) on board more than they would like to let on... the reason? Cuz Fallout 4 and Elder Scrolls VI will more than likely be glitchy unoptimised games. The younger, less experienced console generation who are now moving back to the PC market will be lost, have to start from scratch... without the Nexus, SKSE LOOT and NMM teams, who will at the end of the day be the people who will be driving this whole paid modding "revolution" forward.

This does bring me to the wider point though that there is a conflict of interest here. The way it used to be is that we paid ~£45 for our games... they had massive potential and were pretty amazing but (as someone put it earlier) not even close to the experience gained through using mods... in many cases the game was unplayable, remember the whole Skyboost Application Layer scenario. But that price paid for everything, tools, games sdk all in a nice package. What seems to be forgotten is modders will not be excempt from having to pay for other mods that are not their own, including possible software licences that are not owned by Bethesda.

The point is modders were more inclined to work on these because Bethesda were under a legal obligation to provide a working game. Now, not necessarily so. While there is potential for modders to have some well earned revenue, there will be this playing field where the responsibilities between developer and modder become even more blurry than they are now. There has already been cases of modders complaining they now have to spend more time watching out for copyright and technical issues than they used to because there seems to already be little effort from the developers end in regards to moderation and quality control. Welcome to the slippery slope of mission creep, subscription and thus, recurring costs.

EDIT: I do not think the problem is so much that a modder should be allowed to charge, what is the issue is exactly how, how much and whether they are being exploited or not.

hangman04 wrote: the only think they Beth could do, the least, is to invest a fraction of the revenues in the functionality of the CK, cause the better their sdk is, the greater the possibility to make complex mods, which can be charged to a dlc level and can probably attract professional groups, small indie studios etc.

On the other hand it is possible on long term that this new way of earning money may attract other distributors that may want to compete Valve, and which way is best to compete than giving the author a better cut of the deal.

carlocgc wrote: If you can sell a mod don't you become a developer and not a modder. I mean whats the difference between a developer and a modder? the pay check right?

Totally the point I've been making. Its unregulated outsourcing. Edited April 27, 2015 by sunshinenbrick

[UberSmaug]

In response to post #24717714.

KaiserDeathIV wrote:

Lots of people get paid for hobbies. Ever been to a craft fair. Isn't the dream for anybody to make a living doing something they love. Edited April 27, 2015 by UberSmaug

[sunshinenbrick]

In response to post #24682284. #24682924, #24688774, #24689099, #24689669, #24712014, #24712544, #24712869, #24718274, #24718374 are all replies on the same post.

Acidbuk wrote:

sunshinenbrick wrote: Good points. What I am trying to find out is where the morality, the respect in all of this.

I asked a question earlier but I think it got lost among the longer posts.

When the first Beth sdk was released was it just a big TOC or was there a friendly dialouge between the developer and community?

My reason for asking is becasue the way that the pay for mods has been rolled out is very cruel to the authors who made them because they made them out of the good will and love of games, with I imagine the blessing of Beth... I mean they have had some 10 years to take legal action.

My point is that this is a nasty way to intrduce their customers to the developing world of digital copyright. Why is there no communication from them? Why not talk to their audiences like adults as let's face it, most of us saw something like this was inevitable. But why oh why so aggressively? Or just plain clumsy??

Acidbuk wrote: Bethesda has a history of just dropping the creation-kit with an EULA that when you crunch down the legal speak boils to "Go Nuts. Just don't charge anyone for it". which is standard fare for most SDK's from pretty much any Developer that puts one out. Oh I agree with you, this is an absolutely brutal way to introduce a community that has co-operated for years, to the concept of digital copyright and licensing. licensing is not something anyone really wants to do, its one of those necessary evils which come part and parcel of Software development and its amazingly awesome that as a community we (collectively Users and Creators) have been able to avoid using them, instead using an informal "Please don't steal my stuff just ask if you want to use it" unfortunately as this moves forward, we are almost certainly going to see the term "licensing" as things formalise up between paid and Free mods and what can and cannot be used. I suspect Bethesda will keep quiet and ride out the storm of malcontent until things dye down, then they'll come out with some PR speak about 'We are Bethesda value your input on the recent opportunities for monetization of mods, and we are listening to your feed back and moving forward together with the community'

As for why now? that I couldn't tell you., I would kind of get it if they did this for Fallout 4 or TES-6 whenever that comes out because your dealing with a blank slate. but injecting this into an already vibrant and established ecosystem? is like introducing an invasive plant species. Everyone is scrambling - I really have Sympathy for Robin/Dark0ne right now, Guy had to cancel a holiday to deal with the fallout (no pun intended) from this, between Mod authors taking their mods down to migrate to the workshop, other mod authors scrambling to take their mods down because they are afraid someone will take their work and put IT on the workshop for money as their own (DMCA's are no easy thing), and users trying to download as many mods as they can in panic in case their favourite mods go Pay-Wall. its got to be just a little bit insane, investing all that time and money in the infrastructure upgrade was forward thinking. just not in the way he would have liked I guess.

I do find Valves/Bethesda TOC's morally questionable, in particular how its al-edged Chesko was told by a Valve employee that it was okay to use someone else's free content and include that and charge of it and not have to ask any permission what so-ever, that is not Chesko fault. However I find the concept of Early Access Mods Morally dubious - Early access it and of itself is tittering on the brink, paying for Early Access mods is so far down the slippery slope that I doubt you could even see the top any more.

sunshinenbrick wrote: I think they did it before the realease of the new games so all this stuff thats happening now will have (in their hopeful opinion) died down by then.

Jake_Dragon wrote: Sorry posted in the wrong place

Acidbuk wrote: But that's the thing yeah. it doesn't make sense from a business of physiological perspective. it they were trying to warm people up to the idea of paid mods its far easier to do warm people up to it on a new Product, and with an existing one. For Better or worse Most people people are psychologically firm with the idea mods should be free. - Right or wrong, I'm just saying that's how it is because its "the way its always been". so trying to change that with a new Product is much much better than trying to Bludgeon it into an existing IP like Skyrim because there is a LOT of fear, a whole big lot of it heaped in large ominous spades, because people are afraid of losing their favourite mods. or because of the interconnected nature of mods - having to buy one mod to play another one. its a rabbit warren than don't end.

. I don't think they would have had anywhere near the backlash if they'd made this change for Fallout 4 or TES6 because people aren't as .psychologically invested in the idea of Mods being free, so long as Bethesda had given assurances that they'd not be introducing this retro-actively for other games. people would have taken them at their word and it would have been far less turmoil. now, that trust is broken and Good Will is something you cannot buy, its earned,

sunshinenbrick wrote: I think they need the people on the Nexus (and other free communities) on board more than they would like to let on... the reason? Cuz Fallout 4 and Elder Scrolls VI will more than likely be glitchy unoptimised games. The younger, less experienced console generation who are now moving back to the PC market will be lost, have to start from scratch... without the Nexus, SKSE LOOT and NMM teams, who will at the end of the day be the people who will be driving this whole paid modding "revolution" forward.

This does bring me to the wider point though that there is a conflict of interest here. The way it used to be is that we paid ~£45 for our games... they had massive potential and were pretty amazing but (as someone put it earlier) not even close to the experience gained through using mods... in many cases the game was unplayable, remember the whole Skyboost Application Layer scenario. But that price paid for everything, tools, games sdk all in a nice package. What seems to be forgotten is modders will not be excempt from having to pay for other mods that are not their own, including possible software licences that are not owned by Bethesda.

The point is modders were more inclined to work on these because Bethesda were under a legal obligation to provide a working game. Now, not necessarily so. While there is potential for modders to have some well earned revenue, there will be this playing field where the responsibilities between developer and modder become even more blurry than they are now. There has already been cases of modders complaining they now have to spend more time watching out for copyright and technical issues than they used to because there seems to already be little effort from the developers end in regards to moderation and quality control. Welcome to the slippery slope of mission creep, subscription and thus, recurring costs.

EDIT: I do not think the problem is so much that a modder should be allowed to charge, what is the issue is exactly how, how much and whether they are being exploited or not.

hangman04 wrote: the only think they Beth could do, the least, is to invest a fraction of the revenues in the functionality of the CK, cause the better their sdk is, the greater the possibility to make complex mods, which can be charged to a dlc level and can probably attract professional groups, small indie studios etc.

On the other hand it is possible on long term that this new way of earning money may attract other distributors that may want to compete Valve, and which way is best to compete than giving the author a better cut of the deal.

carlocgc wrote: If you can sell a mod don't you become a developer and not a modder. I mean whats the difference between a developer and a modder? the pay check right?

sunshinenbrick wrote: Totally the point I've been making. Its unregulated outsourcing.

Just found this on the forum

-QUOTE-
25% goes to the 'Unofficial Content Developer' (UCD) as the Developer.
A variable amount up to 30% of UCD's share goes to the 'Internal Revenue Service' of the 'United States Federal Government' as Taxation.
-END QUOTE-

Link: http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/2793044-paid-mods-for-skyrim-workshop-on-steam/page-27#entry24680649

This means as a modder you are unofficially employed in the country you live but are paying into the USA tax system. This sound like a legal and political minefield to anyone else? Edited April 27, 2015 by sunshinenbrick