Steam and Bethesda remove paid modding from Skyrim Workshop

[UberSmaug]

In response to post #24798804. #24799224, #24799404, #24799519, #24799644, #24799784, #24801389, #24801434, #24801494, #24801679, #24801989, #24802034, #24802614, #24802704, #24802794, #24802849, #24803969, #24804034, #24804529, #24804714 are all replies on the same post.

retakrew7 wrote:

UberSmaug wrote: "There are certainly other ways of supporting modder, through donations and other options. We are in favor of all of them. One doesn't replace another, and we want the choice to be the community's. Yet. in just one day, a popular mod developer made more on the Skyrim paid workshop than he made in all the years he asked for donations."

-Bethesda Game Studios

Donations don't work.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: @Uber because of one anecdotal and unsubstantiated claim from a Bethesda puppet, you have come to the conclusion that donations don't work? How droll.

Up until recently there weren't donation buttons on mods at the Nexus. A lot of people weren't aware they could donate. Let's see how that plays out.

greggorypeccary wrote: The fact that the button has been there over a year and most people don't even know it should give you an indication of how important it is to the community.

UberSmaug wrote: by the time the system was pulled down, the maker of purity would have earned over $1000, in five days. That is not anecdotal and unsubstantiated. It was fact. I looked at the subs and did the math myself. Likely they saw modders were making too much money off their IP, and the riots gave them the excuse to pull out. I don't really want to believe that however. I found that the willingness to share what they created, and graciously allowing others to profit off their work is commendable.

Fowldragon wrote: Foster has posted her position on Donations and with a 1 sentence argument she convinced me Donations don't work. 100,000 downloads...1 donation.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If you want to make money doing this sort of thing--get a job at a game company.

Upset that you can't sell your latest greatest mod? If it's so high quality that it's worth money--peddle it to a game company.

Otherwise, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. The modding community has been doing just fine for over 15 years without a single person being paid a cent. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

freedom613 wrote: Donations do not work, but as it was shown, neither do paywalls.

The problem with both is that each one is biased to the opposite party. Donations are biased against the modder since most people do not use them, and paywalls are biased against the consumer for a list of reasons which I have explained too many times (check my post history if you truly are curious).

What we need is a third option. What about Patreon?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Why do we need a "third option"? The modding scene has been doing just fine for over 15 years without a single person being paid a cent. I know because I was one of the first people to put out mods on Morrowind, and a few other games. My then GF was one of the biggest modders on the Sims. Modding is a labor of love--not a career choice. If you want to get paid, get a job at a game company.

freedom613 wrote: Because the Genie is out of the bottle and no matter how hard you try, it is never going back in the bottle. Modders saw they could make money, and that is a lure hard to give up especially with the way many boycotters acted. Patreon is the best of both worlds, you have a donation system but it rewards donators as well.

UberSmaug wrote: @Vesuvius1745 Despite the fact you are simply being rude and dismissive. You are not making a valid counterpoint.

"...we’re looking at some modders making more money than the studio members whose content is being edited."

-Bethesda Game Studios

I get to work from home, on my own time, set my own deadlines. Only work on the projects I chose. Wearing pants is optional. Why would you not want to be a freelance game artist if given the opportunity to make as much if not more than a studio developer.

beewyka819 wrote: Actually Vesuvius1746, you'll tend to find that modders are saying the same thing in how donations are rare and don't make them much money at all.

Donations don't work.

freedom613 wrote: Uber, modding isn't profitable in the long run for modders.

1. Paywalling will lead to a decrease in the quality of mods. If I can get the same, if not more, amount of money making a sword retexture than you can making a 20+ hour companion mod, why would you make a companion mod?

If you are going to make a big mod, you need to look at the opportunity cost. If you spend three months making a companion that will net you $800 when you could spend that same time either working a job which is a guaranteed fix income or making ten swords that will net you $100 each, why make the companion? Out of the goodness of your heart? That isn't how business works.

2. Modding is a community effort. Modders do not usually make 100% of their mod. Arissa 2, formerly a 3pdlc, used a great deal of content from other modders: hair, outfit, etc. When chesko finally removed the stuff he didn't make, the quality of the mod dropped.

Wet and Cold lost their amazing cloak textures. The fishing mod got yanked because Fore owned the animation files. The solution one would think is to cut the other 3pdlcers in on the proceeds yes?

Splitting the 25% cut, especially after paying thousands to buy the commercial licence for the programs you need isn't feasible economically. Which is why a one person retexture will always make more money than a group collab.

3. It puts modders in competition. Modding as I said before is community driven. Once money gets involved, that breaks down. Texturers that once helped each other are now competing against their former friends for market share. Instead of building each other up, they are tearing each other down. This backfires on you and me since we get a lower quality product.

4. Making 3pdlc has a higher barrier to entry:
$100 for Valve's fee.
$1,470 for the commerical version of 3ds Max
That ends up costing you $1,570 just to make a simple sword.

5. Income tax.
=============
As cool as it would be for modders to support themselves doing what they love, it just isn't feasible for the vast majority (even if you factor in Sturgeon's Law).

beewyka819 wrote: Another third way to go is for modders on things like the nexus get a cut of the revenue off the ads that display on their mod pages, like how youtube works.

greggorypeccary wrote: beewyka819 said.
Another third way to go is for modders on things like the nexus get a cut of the revenue off the ads that display on their mod pages, like how youtube works.

Ah ha!! now you're talkin'

sunshinenbrick wrote: "...we’re looking at some modders making more money than the studio members whose content is being edited."

They actually said this???

You do realise with that statement they are probably saying that modders will be doing more WORK than the original developers. Do people not see this?

freedom613 wrote: That 1,470$ is per year by the way. So in order to profit, you need to make $1,570 a year and that is if you are just a 3d modeler. I am not factoring in any other products you need to licence.

I went on a tangent some where here on how modding is profitable (with all these conversations on four different forums and threads, I get lost with what I posted) for big projects, so the future of 3rd party DLC is going to be whatever gives the most return on investment when you factor in opportunity cost and the fixed total costs: simple items. Giant mods such as companions, quests, and the such are not profitable in the long run due to fees you have to pay to your team, and that it would take less time and earn you a bigger ROI just to make items. I go on more about this earlier in the thread, point being: Is that the future of 3rd Party DLC that we want?

To be honest, if mods are going to be behind a paywall, I would rather them go the route of Insurgency and Team Fortress 2 and the like and get financed by a big company and I buy the mod knowing it will have good quality and will be compatible with the rest of my products.

sunshinenbrick wrote: I don't think playing games should be a business. There are already enough things in the world to spend money on and enough blurring of the lines between leisure and work.

UberSmaug wrote: Again, Purity made over $1000 in 5 days. some of the armor and swords had already made $800-$1000. In 5 days. That cost would have been covered in no time at all. people could continue to make large mods for free if they wish.

blackasm wrote: if you are looking for donations you are better off beggin on the side of the road. 100 000 downloads = 1 donation, a number of bums I give change to I know do better than that.

@freedom613. you have some valid points but I still feel you are underestimating the potential here. Yes there are cost involved, its call overhead. "1,570 to make a simple sword". But why would you stop after making just one sword. License is a one time fee to make many product that will pay out over time. Every new mod you produce has the potential for profit. Could you fall flat on your face in failure. Sure. There is risk in business. Still the decision to make that risk should be left to the individual mod author should it not. Regurdless I was responding to the fact that people are saying Donations work leave it alone.

Donations do not work.

Even top modders against paid mods have said as much.



I disagree that money will end all collaboration. Nothing would stop Authors from making deals to share profits in exchange for using each others assets. You would just have to ask. Edited April 29, 2015 by UberSmaug

[np11]

In response to post #24800594. #24801939, #24802404, #24803319, #24803379 are all replies on the same post.

OiramX5 wrote:

beewyka819 wrote: The modders are fully aware that many people still support them. That's not why some are removing their mods, they're doing it to prove a point. And what makes you any different from the haters? Oh, so you didn't like Nightasy's decision so you go and s#*! of him and other modders, that's exactly what the haters do. A true supporter would support the modder no matter what his decision on the publicity of his mods are, as long as the reasons don't include being an ***hole or anything along those lines. I for example, emailed Chesko and mentioned how I will support him through and through, no matter what his choice is, to stop modding, to continue, etc. THAT is a true fan, NOT someone that turns the other way because they got butthurt because everything didn't go their way.

OiramX5 wrote: beewyka81

There a difference between support something and mindless follow without question, I support the modders but I not approve the actions of some, like this kind of thing.

Well, the only point they prove to me doing this is they only care about haters and give a **** to who support them or have supported all this time. I dont like, dont approve, dont think this is fair with the supporters, but in any moment I have **** on him.

And Chesko unlike Nightasy, Foxster and Nodoric (Just to name a few) dont have gone angry and remove all his content because the haters, and Chesko suffered much more than him but dont turn blind eye to the supporters, that's the point.

blackasm wrote: OiramX5 you support free s#*!, money is value plain and simple. You cannot talk about a 25% cut being awful for the modder when you support 0%

sunshinenbrick wrote: Money is not the only thing of value in the world. Sorry but it isn't.

First, an example. I really like mods like racemenu and ECE. I really liked RSChildren, I think it's the best children overhaul so far. Will I miss them if they go away? Well sure, I think they're good. Will I miss some modders if they leave (throwing a tantrum like some are doing here or not)? Well I don't know them personally, but I think most of them are nice people. Thing is... I'll get used to it. In the end I can live without mods. I can certainly live without overpriced DLC or microtransactions in my games.

As altruistic, bright individuals and members of the community, they are indispensable. As (wannabe) DLC salesmen, they are certainly not. Some users seem to underestimate a modder's value, but some modders seems to overestimate their own. The point they will prove is that people can actually live without them. You just can't punish people by throwing a tantrum and removing your mods. Another point they will prove (or, more accurately, remind us) is that vanilla Skyrim is not that great a game and people can live without that, too. Too many good games around to keep playing vanilla Skyrim. And many of these games are good enough that they don't NEED mods to reach a playable or great state. I'm sorry but your supposed (potential) customers don't need you. It's the other way around. The one who's been asked to pay is the one who's more important in a trade. I wonder now... Who lost?

[DreamingGirl]

In response to post #24798859. #24798999, #24799109, #24799114, #24799789, #24800024, #24800839, #24802019, #24802639, #24802919, #24803084, #24803214, #24803324 are all replies on the same post.

Nightasy wrote:

Axeface wrote: Well said Nightasy, and thankyou for your tutorials. Sad to see your mods go, but I agree with everything you said.
Like someone else here said. Youtubers can make money from everyones mods. Twitch streamers can. The nexus can. Valve and Beth can, yet the 'community' actively refuses modders that chance, and it's only a chance, because only quality would actually sell.
Self determination is important, and that has been refused.

In hindsight they should have actively curated the system, just like they do in other games. And allowed a donate button, instead of the 'pay-what-you-want-but-PAY' system.

UberSmaug wrote: Sums up everything I've been saying for the past few days. Well said.

greggorypeccary wrote: I don't see how any thinking person could fault you.

vimebox wrote: Playing music for a family event is DIFFERENT from playing concert! go join as bethesda employee if u want a "REAL CONCERT!" and play here if u want to entertain a POOR PATHETIC FAMILY! who can only gives u a constructive critics!

did u know that somehow your mod makes RICH people buy vanilla skyrim? and bethesda not giving u anything not even a simple thanks of endorsement from that uprising selling! instead we gave u endorsement as a portfolio for your good credibility. in conclusion bethesda SHOULD make u as their employee/DLC project instead of taking money from your FAMILY!

arxerisdam wrote: i think all modders who feel that way should actually go and download their stuff.

Someone else will take the place and life will go on.

greggorypeccary wrote: I think they will. So what's your point. In the end you can download free mods from wealthy people and people that think it is their hobby and very new modders who just want experience. They will be free though so I guess you win. Some will even be good.

CNR4806 wrote: Well, goodbye then?

What makes you think you're the first? What makes you think Skyrim is the first place I've seen modders with attitude like yours?

From what I see over the years (including games with a free/paid mod split like The Sims), every time someone rage-quits, the community on a whole remains unchanged, the status quo is maintained and nobody even remembers that modder after a few months at best.

One piece of advice: Don't get fooled by those who say "Awwww thank you for all these years of modding, I will miss you" when you announce your retirement. They'll happily move on before the end of the week and forget about you altogether.

necroslord wrote: Just a remark to Axeface...

I don't think it's right to compare streamers or the nexus' earnings to "paid mods" as they are somewhat different. Most of those earnings come from third parties and not the consumers themsleves (ads and such).

A viewer can watch 10,000 videos in youtube and generate some revenue to the poster without too much trouble. But a player can't afford 100 mods at $1 a pop without affecting him to a greater or lesser degree.

Not taking sides on the matter, as it's a very complicated matter I still ahven't wrapped my head around even when it's already dead. But think that saying:

"Youtubers can make money from everyones mods. Twitch streamers can. The nexus can. Valve and Beth can, yet the 'community' actively refuses modders that chance"

is not valid.

Nightasy wrote: @CNR4806 - Oh, I'm not the first and I won't be the last. Artists have rights and no one should be allowed to take them away from us. The anti-paid mod community took away the right to sell mods from us. We need to fight for that freedom of choice. You have the right to choose whether or not do download mods, you have the right to choose whether or not to pay for mods. Artists should have the right to give away their work for free or charge a fee to purchase it.

Lastly, thanks for more of your hateful and ungrateful sentiments. They are unwelcome but they continue to prove my points. I have no response towards them, I am done listening to the hate.

freedom613 wrote: If I have the right to boycott buying mods, you have the right to boycott giving them away. I do not agree with what you are doing, but I will respect it.

arxerisdam wrote: @greggorypeccary

Some may even be good?

I think they will be better the problem now is the actual modders crying out laud how evil mod users are,do not realize they need to convince those users to actually buy their stuff, but instead of that they cry to heaven curse the mod users, is riddiculous you antagonize your future clients.

Now as anyone thinking in becoming a modder for hire?

i mean there are tons of ideas to make some money in this kind of stuff but all i see is people complaining and taking stuff too personally and looking at users as evil demos.

Really the momment you arent happy in a Open source community is time to pack up and move on, leave the spot open for new talented like minded people come and take the place, and i bet we will see a lot of good mods in the future and the community will endure no matter how many "amazing modders" go it has happen before with oblivion and the community is still here, growing and evolving, so yeah i think is time a lot of people just move on.

and really poor modders? anyone spending time making a mod for a game most have a least a more less decent computer and enough free time to spend it doing it plus an internet connection to upload the mod. if he has that then it is not a poor modder. and if by any chance it is poor and is losing he's/her time in making mods for a game for free then that person has a big problem of priorities

greggorypeccary wrote: Then you'll be happy.

There is nothing stopping you from making money off your mods. Set up your own website to host them, and cash off from ad revenues. That is the way youtubers earn their money anyway (they don't actually take any money from their viewers). Make your own videos to feature your mods on youtube, even screenshots work fine if you don't have the time/skill to make actual video shots.

There are plenty of ways to make money if you just think outside the box! (And you might even enjoy it too!) :)

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24801759. #24802244, #24802379, #24802609, #24802804, #24802979, #24803189, #24803484, #24803499, #24803564, #24803729 are all replies on the same post.

DaddyDirection wrote:

greggorypeccary wrote: Read my post, I used the nexus and it was very nice. It is a little blind to the fact that it does very well on the labors of un paid modders. It does not share the wealth with the ones that earn it for them. since you get free mods it seems fine to you. If you read my post I think you'll find that what I find is shameful really is that the nexus expects you to pay the modders. I think most of that onus is on them.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The dirty secret here is Greggory gets free mods too. He's been enjoying the work of other people in the community for years. He's used the free utilities and resources provided to the community for free as well. But instead of paying-it-forward like all of the mod authors whose work he has enjoyed, he now wants to profit off of what others have allowed him to do.

greggorypeccary wrote: Its no dirty secret. I have been a contributing member of this community for some time. I'm proud of my contributions and any one can see them.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Gregory, I see exactly zero contributions from you. Are you one of those modders who threw a temper tantrum and hid all your mods?

greggorypeccary wrote: You could hope but you'd be wrong.

pintocat wrote: greggorypeccary has a mod. You, on the other hand, have zero. If you've got no contributions to the community, you have no place talking down to someone who actually has.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: So all of this crying from Gregory over a single mod? Hilarious. If your mod is so wonderful, why don't you try and sell it to Bethesda? They could incorporate it into their next DLC.

sunshinenbrick wrote: No offence to any mod creator but it is not the only thing people can contribute.

greggorypeccary wrote: Vesuvius1745

The more you say the more apparent your ignorance becomes.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I'm being serious Greggory, and not insulting you. If your mods are so great, why don't you try and sell them to Bethesda or some other game company? Crying about not being able to sell them on Valve on the Nexus is a pointless endeavor.

Or better yet, why not get a job at a game company? I used to work at Electronic Arts in the early 2000s. Redwood Shores in California. The pay is good, the benefits are good, and you get to work on games for a living.

Sunshine is right. The "well, umm, what have you contributed?" reply is just a way to avoid addressing the points made. Edited April 29, 2015 by Vesuvius1745

[OiramX5]

In response to post #24800594. #24801939, #24802404, #24803319, #24803379, #24803609 are all replies on the same post.

OiramX5 wrote:

beewyka819 wrote: The modders are fully aware that many people still support them. That's not why some are removing their mods, they're doing it to prove a point. And what makes you any different from the haters? Oh, so you didn't like Nightasy's decision so you go and s#*! of him and other modders, that's exactly what the haters do. A true supporter would support the modder no matter what his decision on the publicity of his mods are, as long as the reasons don't include being an ***hole or anything along those lines. I for example, emailed Chesko and mentioned how I will support him through and through, no matter what his choice is, to stop modding, to continue, etc. THAT is a true fan, NOT someone that turns the other way because they got butthurt because everything didn't go their way.

OiramX5 wrote: beewyka81

There a difference between support something and mindless follow without question, I support the modders but I not approve the actions of some, like this kind of thing.

Well, the only point they prove to me doing this is they only care about haters and give a **** to who support them or have supported all this time. I dont like, dont approve, dont think this is fair with the supporters, but in any moment I have **** on him.

And Chesko unlike Nightasy, Foxster and Nodoric (Just to name a few) dont have gone angry and remove all his content because the haters, and Chesko suffered much more than him but dont turn blind eye to the supporters, that's the point.

blackasm wrote: OiramX5 you support free s#*!, money is value plain and simple. You cannot talk about a 25% cut being awful for the modder when you support 0%

sunshinenbrick wrote: Money is not the only thing of value in the world. Sorry but it isn't.

np11 wrote: First, an example. I really like mods like racemenu and ECE. I really liked RSChildren, I think it's the best children overhaul so far. Will I miss them if they go away? Well sure, I think they're good. Will I miss some modders if they leave (throwing a tantrum like some are doing here or not)? Well I don't know them personally, but I think most of them are nice people. Thing is... I'll get used to it. In the end I can live without mods. I can certainly live without overpriced DLC or microtransactions in my games.

As altruistic, bright individuals and members of the community, they are indispensable. As (wannabe) DLC salesmen, they are certainly not. Some users seem to underestimate a modder's value, but some modders seems to overestimate their own. The point they will prove is that people can actually live without them. You just can't punish people by throwing a tantrum and removing your mods. Another point they will prove (or, more accurately, remind us) is that vanilla Skyrim is not that great a game and people can live without that, too. Too many good games around to keep playing vanilla Skyrim. And many of these games are good enough that they don't NEED mods to reach a playable or great state. I'm sorry but your supposed (potential) customers don't need you. It's the other way around. The one who's been asked to pay is the one who's more important in a trade. I wonder now... Who lost?

blackasm

I wont supported greed companies the try make money with slavery labor and I wont support a thing than could be another "Horse Armor", would you like more DLC's in the future? If the answer is "Yes", well, you are rich to afford and I am not, like 80 % ppl of planet.

And if I can, I will support with money (Is hard because one Dollar is TRIPLE than one Real, so make the counts), especially great mods, like Heart Of Dead of Oblivion (For me that was the best quest I have played).
Edited April 29, 2015 by OiramX5

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24801759. #24802244, #24802379, #24802609, #24802804, #24802979, #24803189, #24803484, #24803499, #24803564, #24803639 are all replies on the same post.

DaddyDirection wrote:

greggorypeccary wrote: Read my post, I used the nexus and it was very nice. It is a little blind to the fact that it does very well on the labors of un paid modders. It does not share the wealth with the ones that earn it for them. since you get free mods it seems fine to you. If you read my post I think you'll find that what I find is shameful really is that the nexus expects you to pay the modders. I think most of that onus is on them.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The dirty secret here is Greggory gets free mods too. He's been enjoying the work of other people in the community for years. He's used the free utilities and resources provided to the community for free as well. But instead of paying-it-forward like all of the mod authors whose work he has enjoyed, he now wants to profit off of what others have allowed him to do.

greggorypeccary wrote: Its no dirty secret. I have been a contributing member of this community for some time. I'm proud of my contributions and any one can see them.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Gregory, I see exactly zero contributions from you. Are you one of those modders who threw a temper tantrum and hid all your mods?

greggorypeccary wrote: You could hope but you'd be wrong.

pintocat wrote: greggorypeccary has a mod. You, on the other hand, have zero. If you've got no contributions to the community, you have no place talking down to someone who actually has.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: So all of this crying from Gregory over a single mod? Hilarious. If your mod is so wonderful, why don't you try and sell it to Bethesda? They could incorporate it into their next DLC.

sunshinenbrick wrote: No offence to any mod creator but it is not the only thing people can contribute.

greggorypeccary wrote: Vesuvius1745

The more you say the more apparent your ignorance becomes.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Sunshine is right. The "well, umm, what have you contributed?" reply is just a way to avoid addressing the points made. Having to stop and list your resume is just a red herring, and irrelevant to this issue.

I'm being serious Greggory, and not insulting you. If your mods are so great, why don't you try and sell them to Bethesda or some other game company? Crying about not being able to sell them on Valve on the Nexus is a pointless endeavor.

Or better yet, why not get a job at a game company? I used to work at Electronic Arts in the early 2000s. Redwood Shores in California. The pay is good, the benefits are good, and you get to work on games for a living.

[Terramaris]

In response to post #24801964. #24802149, #24802519, #24802894, #24803109, #24803194, #24803479 are all replies on the same post.

Axeface wrote:

freedom613 wrote: Well done story but it forgets to factor in:
-Licencing (Most free modeling software do not let you sell work made on it, you need to fork out a grand for the full version).
-Lack of quality assurance (someone on imgur reviewed all the paid mods, needless to say, most of their quality was lacking and there were bugs galore)
-Risk of modder who stops supporting his/her mod incase an update breaks it.
-Incompatibility between mods

I could go on, but I believe I made my point. The issue goes far beyond "I want to make money off my work" and "I do not want to pay a dime for a mod". Best not to use a strawman when making a point.

Axeface wrote: "Licensing" - irrelevant. It isn't your job, bethesdas or valves to police modders.
"Quality" - Agreed yet subjective, this is why they should have made it curated. But this was an experiment with that exact aim, to see what it's like if it isn't, imho. But we didnt even get to see what would happen, and were unfortunately inundated by troll mods in the 'review' section.
"Risk/Incompatibility" - As above, and irrelevant. It isn't up to you to tell people where to spend their money. There is risk in everything.

Yes the issue goes beyond, will have problems, and the implimentation had major issues. But to deny modders the chance... well.

freedom613 wrote: -How is licencing irrelevant? It is a violation of the TOS the modder agreed too. Ignoring that is opening a door to law suits.

-I would link the imgur article so I could show you the lack of quality of the mods (and I am talking in a "early access" lack of quality, not the textures could have been done a bit better lack of quality) but it credit's a skyrim mod piracy site. For the sake of the rules, I cannot link the photos on imgur, so I will summarise the findings:
-badly ported dota swords with grips so big that your hands clip through them + no proper shading at all.
-Most items had no inventory models, or only had a model for a single gender.
That is just a handful of the findings.

-This goes beyond a risk. If I paid for something, I want it to work. If it doesn't work, I want a refund. The fact that a modder could make a mod, have it break in an update, and I would be out of luck is absurd. How you not see this problem, and especially the licencing, as a problem boggles the mind.

Axeface wrote: "-How is licencing irrelevant? It is a violation of the TOS the modder agreed too. Ignoring that is opening a door to law suits."
It is irrelevant to you, the buyer, completely.

And you could get a refund, for 24 hours. Yes, it should NOT have been in steam wallet money, if that rumour is true. Yet another issue, but not a reason to refuse the system altogether.

freedom613 wrote: So because it doesn't directly affect me, I cannot point the problem out? Tad selfish don't you think, especially from someone condemning the other camp as selfish. In any case, I posted some problems with paid mods, not some problems buying paid mods. So my point is relevant and stands. I wont even get into the problems with 24 hour refund (and yes, the rumour is true).

Axeface wrote: "So because it doesn't directly affect me, I cannot point the problem out? Tad selfish don't you think"
What on earth are you talking about?

Actually, it kind of makes sense. Clarifies your stance.
You think you should be able to tell people not to brake a TOS or the law, and you also want to tell them that they cant self-determine by selling mods.

No sir, I am not selfish for wanting people to have the option to do whatever the hell they want, the consequences are in their hands, not yours.

"Actually, it kind of makes sense. Clarifies your stance.
You think you should be able to tell people not to brake a TOS or the law, and you also want to tell them that they cant self-determine by selling mods.

No sir, I am not selfish for wanting people to have the option to do whatever the hell they want, the consequences are in their hands, not yours."

Let me clarify my stance then: I am in favour of using the right tool for the job in every industry to benefit both producer and consumer. Paywalling is good for some industries, such as the purchasing of physical items, but it doesn't make much sense in mass-consumption digital industries, such as Youtube and modding.

The best scenario would be to mimic Youtube's model of buisness. Patreon, Ad Revenue, Sponserships. Each of those cost the consumer nothing but time and optional fiscal transactions.

Now you say I should let people self determine. Perhaps it is my LEO background, but I am not going to someone self-determine themselves into breaking a law.

[dragnipura]

In response to post #24801964. #24802149, #24802519, #24802894, #24803109, #24803194, #24803479, #24803744, #24803814 are all replies on the same post.

Axeface wrote:

freedom613 wrote: Well done story but it forgets to factor in:
-Licencing (Most free modeling software do not let you sell work made on it, you need to fork out a grand for the full version).
-Lack of quality assurance (someone on imgur reviewed all the paid mods, needless to say, most of their quality was lacking and there were bugs galore)
-Risk of modder who stops supporting his/her mod incase an update breaks it.
-Incompatibility between mods

I could go on, but I believe I made my point. The issue goes far beyond "I want to make money off my work" and "I do not want to pay a dime for a mod". Best not to use a strawman when making a point.

Axeface wrote: "Licensing" - irrelevant. It isn't your job, bethesdas or valves to police modders.
"Quality" - Agreed yet subjective, this is why they should have made it curated. But this was an experiment with that exact aim, to see what it's like if it isn't, imho. But we didnt even get to see what would happen, and were unfortunately inundated by troll mods in the 'review' section.
"Risk/Incompatibility" - As above, and irrelevant. It isn't up to you to tell people where to spend their money. There is risk in everything.

Yes the issue goes beyond, will have problems, and the implimentation had major issues. But to deny modders the chance... well.

freedom613 wrote: -How is licencing irrelevant? It is a violation of the TOS the modder agreed too. Ignoring that is opening a door to law suits.

-I would link the imgur article so I could show you the lack of quality of the mods (and I am talking in a "early access" lack of quality, not the textures could have been done a bit better lack of quality) but it credit's a skyrim mod piracy site. For the sake of the rules, I cannot link the photos on imgur, so I will summarise the findings:
-badly ported dota swords with grips so big that your hands clip through them + no proper shading at all.
-Most items had no inventory models, or only had a model for a single gender.
That is just a handful of the findings.

-This goes beyond a risk. If I paid for something, I want it to work. If it doesn't work, I want a refund. The fact that a modder could make a mod, have it break in an update, and I would be out of luck is absurd. How you not see this problem, and especially the licencing, as a problem boggles the mind.

Axeface wrote: "-How is licencing irrelevant? It is a violation of the TOS the modder agreed too. Ignoring that is opening a door to law suits."
It is irrelevant to you, the buyer, completely.

And you could get a refund, for 24 hours. Yes, it should NOT have been in steam wallet money, if that rumour is true. Yet another issue, but not a reason to refuse the system altogether.

freedom613 wrote: So because it doesn't directly affect me, I cannot point the problem out? Tad selfish don't you think, especially from someone condemning the other camp as selfish. In any case, I posted some problems with paid mods, not some problems buying paid mods. So my point is relevant and stands. I wont even get into the problems with 24 hour refund (and yes, the rumour is true).

Axeface wrote: "So because it doesn't directly affect me, I cannot point the problem out? Tad selfish don't you think"
What on earth are you talking about?

Actually, it kind of makes sense. Clarifies your stance.
You think you should be able to tell people not to brake a TOS or the law, and you also want to tell them that they cant self-determine by selling mods.

No sir, I am not selfish for wanting people to have the option to do whatever the hell they want, the consequences are in their hands, not yours.

freedom613 wrote: "Actually, it kind of makes sense. Clarifies your stance.
You think you should be able to tell people not to brake a TOS or the law, and you also want to tell them that they cant self-determine by selling mods.

No sir, I am not selfish for wanting people to have the option to do whatever the hell they want, the consequences are in their hands, not yours."

Let me clarify my stance then: I am in favour of using the right tool for the job in every industry to benefit both producer and consumer. Paywalling is good for some industries, such as the purchasing of physical items, but it doesn't make much sense in mass-consumption digital industries, such as Youtube and modding.

The best scenario would be to mimic Youtube's model of buisness. Patreon, Ad Revenue, Sponserships. Each of those cost the consumer nothing but time and optional fiscal transactions.

Now you say I should let people self determine. Perhaps it is my LEO background, but I am not going to someone self-determine themselves into breaking a law.

sunshinenbrick wrote: Can I make swords in your forge?

For 2.99 you can.

@Axeface is completely right. Most people simply do not understand (or underestimate) the legal cesspool beneath this endeavour. Everyone is completely focussing on the relation modcreators/downloader, but that is the LEAST important bit here! There are serious legal issues with this system. Most creators do not comprehend what kind of liability they're taking on when asking money for their mods:

- possible liability for non-conformity - do not forget that especially European laws are
strict on this point.

- possible trouble with national revenue laws: in some countries your obliged to list extra
income as soon as it passes a annual minimum (in some countries not even a couple of
hundred bucks)

- possible copyright infringement - many modcreators use parts or have based their material on freeware third party assets - no problem when you're doing it for free, but
in some countries as soon as you charge money for it, your possibly guilty of unlawful enrichment.
- possible copyright infringement - I think I'm right in saying that most modcreators use freeware versions of 3D or painting programs. That's cool, but as soon as you charge
money for stuff you've created with their programs (like 3ds-max and Adobe Photoshop)
you're in trouble. That's only allowed when you've paid for their programs.

- the biggest question of all is who will be liable in the end. In some countries (most European and the US) one could make a point that Valve (as gateway and distributor)
have misled, or neglected to properly inform the participants of their legal rights and obligations. In some countries this can easily be circumvented by making the participant (digitally) acknowledging they've been informed of their rights with one single click, but for many countries that's not enough. Especially when the participant is a drop dead normal consumer. I can garantee that current and future European laws are quite hellbent on this.

There are other (minor) legal issues, but these I find the most pressing.

And let us not forget: most of the money would've gone to Valve/Bethesda - this was (as far as I'm concerned) just a corporate attempt to gain profit from modding and control over the entire modding scene. The modcreators were duped. Given a few pennies, whilst the Bethesda/Valve got the bucks, and now it's gone tits up and its the creators who get trolled.
Edited April 29, 2015 by dragnipura

[sunshinenbrick]

In response to post #24801964. #24802149, #24802519, #24802894, #24803109, #24803194, #24803479, #24803744, #24803784 are all replies on the same post.

Axeface wrote:

freedom613 wrote: Well done story but it forgets to factor in:
-Licencing (Most free modeling software do not let you sell work made on it, you need to fork out a grand for the full version).
-Lack of quality assurance (someone on imgur reviewed all the paid mods, needless to say, most of their quality was lacking and there were bugs galore)
-Risk of modder who stops supporting his/her mod incase an update breaks it.
-Incompatibility between mods

I could go on, but I believe I made my point. The issue goes far beyond "I want to make money off my work" and "I do not want to pay a dime for a mod". Best not to use a strawman when making a point.

Axeface wrote: "Licensing" - irrelevant. It isn't your job, bethesdas or valves to police modders.
"Quality" - Agreed yet subjective, this is why they should have made it curated. But this was an experiment with that exact aim, to see what it's like if it isn't, imho. But we didnt even get to see what would happen, and were unfortunately inundated by troll mods in the 'review' section.
"Risk/Incompatibility" - As above, and irrelevant. It isn't up to you to tell people where to spend their money. There is risk in everything.

Yes the issue goes beyond, will have problems, and the implimentation had major issues. But to deny modders the chance... well.

freedom613 wrote: -How is licencing irrelevant? It is a violation of the TOS the modder agreed too. Ignoring that is opening a door to law suits.

-I would link the imgur article so I could show you the lack of quality of the mods (and I am talking in a "early access" lack of quality, not the textures could have been done a bit better lack of quality) but it credit's a skyrim mod piracy site. For the sake of the rules, I cannot link the photos on imgur, so I will summarise the findings:
-badly ported dota swords with grips so big that your hands clip through them + no proper shading at all.
-Most items had no inventory models, or only had a model for a single gender.
That is just a handful of the findings.

-This goes beyond a risk. If I paid for something, I want it to work. If it doesn't work, I want a refund. The fact that a modder could make a mod, have it break in an update, and I would be out of luck is absurd. How you not see this problem, and especially the licencing, as a problem boggles the mind.

Axeface wrote: "-How is licencing irrelevant? It is a violation of the TOS the modder agreed too. Ignoring that is opening a door to law suits."
It is irrelevant to you, the buyer, completely.

And you could get a refund, for 24 hours. Yes, it should NOT have been in steam wallet money, if that rumour is true. Yet another issue, but not a reason to refuse the system altogether.

freedom613 wrote: So because it doesn't directly affect me, I cannot point the problem out? Tad selfish don't you think, especially from someone condemning the other camp as selfish. In any case, I posted some problems with paid mods, not some problems buying paid mods. So my point is relevant and stands. I wont even get into the problems with 24 hour refund (and yes, the rumour is true).

Axeface wrote: "So because it doesn't directly affect me, I cannot point the problem out? Tad selfish don't you think"
What on earth are you talking about?

Actually, it kind of makes sense. Clarifies your stance.
You think you should be able to tell people not to brake a TOS or the law, and you also want to tell them that they cant self-determine by selling mods.

No sir, I am not selfish for wanting people to have the option to do whatever the hell they want, the consequences are in their hands, not yours.

freedom613 wrote: "Actually, it kind of makes sense. Clarifies your stance.
You think you should be able to tell people not to brake a TOS or the law, and you also want to tell them that they cant self-determine by selling mods.

No sir, I am not selfish for wanting people to have the option to do whatever the hell they want, the consequences are in their hands, not yours."

Let me clarify my stance then: I am in favour of using the right tool for the job in every industry to benefit both producer and consumer. Paywalling is good for some industries, such as the purchasing of physical items, but it doesn't make much sense in mass-consumption digital industries, such as Youtube and modding.

The best scenario would be to mimic Youtube's model of buisness. Patreon, Ad Revenue, Sponserships. Each of those cost the consumer nothing but time and optional fiscal transactions.

Now you say I should let people self determine. Perhaps it is my LEO background, but I am not going to someone self-determine themselves into breaking a law.

dragnipura wrote: @Axeface is completely right. Most people simply do not understand (or underestimate) the legal cesspool beneath this endeavour. Everyone is completely focussing on the relation modcreators/downloader, but that is the LEAST important bit here! There are serious legal issues with this system. Most creators do not comprehend what kind of liability they're taking on when asking money for their mods:

- possible liability for non-conformity - do not forget that especially European laws are
strict on this point.

- possible trouble with national revenue laws: in some countries your obliged to list extra
income as soon as it passes a annual minimum (in some countries not even a couple of
hundred bucks)

- possible copyright infringement - many modcreators use parts or have based their
material on freeware third party assets - no problem when you're doing it for free, but
in some countries as soon as you charge money for it, your possibly guilty of unlawful
enrichment.
- possible copyright infringement - I think I'm right in saying that most modcreators use
freeware versions of 3D or painting programs. That's cool, but as soon as you charge
money for stuff you've created with their programs (like 3ds-max and Adobe Photoshop)
you're in trouble. That's only allowed when you've paid for their programs.

- the biggest question of all is who will be liable in the end. In some countries (most
European and the US) one could make a point that Valve (as gateway and distributor)
have misled, or neglected to properly inform the participants of their legal rights and
obligations. In some countries this can easily be circumvented by making the participant
(digitally) acknowledging they've been informed of their rights with one single click, but
for many countries that's not enough. Especially when the participant is a drop dead
normal consumer. I can garantee that current and future European laws are quite
hellbent on this.

There are other (minor) legal issues, but these I find the most pressing.

And let us not forget: most of the money would've gone to Valve/Bethesda - this was (as far as I'm concerned) just a corporate attempt to gain profit from modding and control over the entire modding scene. The modcreators were duped. Given a few pennies, whilst the Bethesda/Valve got the bucks, and now it's gone tits up and its the creators who get trolled.

Can I make swords in your forge?

For 2.99 you can.

[greggorypeccary]

In response to post #24801759. #24802244, #24802379, #24802609, #24802804, #24802979, #24803189, #24803484, #24803499, #24803564, #24803639, #24803729 are all replies on the same post.

DaddyDirection wrote:

greggorypeccary wrote: Read my post, I used the nexus and it was very nice. It is a little blind to the fact that it does very well on the labors of un paid modders. It does not share the wealth with the ones that earn it for them. since you get free mods it seems fine to you. If you read my post I think you'll find that what I find is shameful really is that the nexus expects you to pay the modders. I think most of that onus is on them.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The dirty secret here is Greggory gets free mods too. He's been enjoying the work of other people in the community for years. He's used the free utilities and resources provided to the community for free as well. But instead of paying-it-forward like all of the mod authors whose work he has enjoyed, he now wants to profit off of what others have allowed him to do.

greggorypeccary wrote: Its no dirty secret. I have been a contributing member of this community for some time. I'm proud of my contributions and any one can see them.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Gregory, I see exactly zero contributions from you. Are you one of those modders who threw a temper tantrum and hid all your mods?

greggorypeccary wrote: You could hope but you'd be wrong.

pintocat wrote: greggorypeccary has a mod. You, on the other hand, have zero. If you've got no contributions to the community, you have no place talking down to someone who actually has.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: So all of this crying from Gregory over a single mod? Hilarious. If your mod is so wonderful, why don't you try and sell it to Bethesda? They could incorporate it into their next DLC.

sunshinenbrick wrote: No offence to any mod creator but it is not the only thing people can contribute.

greggorypeccary wrote: Vesuvius1745

The more you say the more apparent your ignorance becomes.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Sunshine is right. The "well, umm, what have you contributed?" reply is just a way to avoid addressing the points made.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I'm being serious Greggory, and not insulting you. If your mods are so great, why don't you try and sell them to Bethesda or some other game company? Crying about not being able to sell them on Valve on the Nexus is a pointless endeavor.

Or better yet, why not get a job at a game company? I used to work at Electronic Arts in the early 2000s. Redwood Shores in California. The pay is good, the benefits are good, and you get to work on games for a living.

Again I'm not crying. I'm fine, my mod was free and always will be. My payment was friends and knowledge. If i were to do more I'd want money. If that makes me a greedy monster taking away your free stuff in your eyes, so be it. I'll sleep tonight.