Steam and Bethesda remove paid modding from Skyrim Workshop

[Xhon]

Totally agree Dark0ne.

[Brasscatcher]

In response to post #24753464.

phantompally76 wrote:

Wahahahaha I've never heard of this guy. This is great.

[trex123]

So what happens to the mods which were removed? Are the mod authors willing to put them back?

[Brasscatcher]

In response to post #24758224. #24758554, #24758859, #24758979 are all replies on the same post.

Fifidapoodle wrote:

MrGrymReaper wrote: @ Fifidapoodle - I don't really agree with the paid mods.

Not only because I can't afford it. As well as the excessively large percentage proportion which the game developer and game publisher gave themselves compared to the insignificant amount for the mod's creator. Who did all of the hardwork using the SDK as well as fixing content bug, content glitches and working around idiosynchronicities of the game. All without having access to the game engine's own source code.

Not only the too short guarentee that was present.

I also view modding as a hobby and as a means of gaining experience in order to work in the industry or other similar industries.

Dirtysocks wrote: Developers and studios alike will carefully weigh up modding for their games going forward that's for certain, especially after this fiasco. Paid mods may come back for new games, but that's down the road and is less worrying in general

On the other side of things everyone has to be wondering what's In store for the new Elder Scrolls and Fallout games on the horizon, I'm really hoping modding stays close to current, ie. No change....... If you want to debate something, debate this

For Nexus if anything this event has made the community stronger, so I have to disagree with you

Syq111 wrote: I think a dark days comes to gaming and modding.Game becomes more and more causal,devs trying to make money on someone works by implementing paying mods wich are lets say was crappy

@dirty companies were changing their stance on modding BEFORE all this. For years, actually. Modding conflicts with DLC and cash shops, and those things are GREAT from a dev/distro's point of view. Why let the players make and distribute FOR FREE that which we can squeeze nickels and dimes out of them for?

So, it was certain that one day someone would try something along these lines. I'm surprised they were so blatant about the profiteering on the initial attempt; but not unhappy about it. It made the case much more stark from the outset and cast the whole thing in a pretty clear light.

[sunshinenbrick]

In response to post #24753464. #24759394 is also a reply to the same post.

phantompally76 wrote:

Brasscatcher wrote: Wahahahaha I've never heard of this guy. This is great.

F'in hell man I thought it was Gabe Newell at first! LOL!

[Zzimith]

In response to post #24759539.

trex123 wrote:

Yeah. I became rather fond of W&C 2.0 and Purity over the last few :) I hope the mod authors manage to see past the assholes that emerged in this community (I expect) and recover.

[Brasscatcher]

In response to post #24758289. #24758584 is also a reply to the same post.

undedavenger wrote:

sunshinenbrick wrote: I agree that there needs to be a form of quality control and regulation if they tried to do it again.

I also honestly don't see the problem with having the best of both world's. Free/Donate mods everywhere else, paid/free mods on Steam. A modder can choose what they want to do then as the Nexus will act as a kind of nursery and then they can go on paid when they reach a set of standards (probably laid out by Bethesda). But I think the modder themselves MUST have the choice to charge or not. And to have files on both the Nexus and Steam.

It just needed to all be properly thought out really and the corporates need to communicate better with their audience.

Someone on Gopher's Soundcloud stream put this pretty perfectly in perspective:

"In my opinion there can't be an open system for this, paid mods are closer to DLC in business terms and in value to the customer; the only difference is the nature of the labor. Paid mods should be 'curated', vetted and quality checked by Bethesda themselves; Bethesda should not be taking a cut for something they would not release themselves. Mods should be pitched like real projects with some scope with the developer being trusted by Bethesda as they would any contractor they use. At least that's something like this should be used when demanding a hefty pay wall, some of my most played games are under $10; I expect something at least a fraction of the quality, not $2 for 1 sword, or 50c for some .ini edit."

That's what all the people arguing FOR it are not seeing; They think "I can keep doing what I'm doing and all that changes is now I'm making money for it!" When in fact the whole paradigm has shifted! People are much more flexible when it costs nothing, and infinitely less so when you want them to pay for a thing.

[Fowldragon]

In response to post #24750659. #24751234, #24751479, #24751989, #24752184, #24752194, #24752214, #24752369, #24752499, #24752619, #24752624, #24752694, #24752819, #24752834, #24752854, #24752944, #24753079, #24753134, #24753249, #24755354, #24755649, #24755674, #24755734, #24755859, #24756679, #24756804, #24757029, #24757049, #24757199, #24757929, #24758809, #24759289 are all replies on the same post.

njits wrote:

tmtapani wrote: Really? I'm all for modders getting compensation for their work if they wish to monetize it, it's their work after all. But come on. They have no RIGHT to get anything for it unless they sell it in a free market. No modder has a RIGHT to get anything at all just because they happen to be modders and have uploaded something that others might use or not. Unless someone hired them to do it. THEN they would have a right to get compensated. But would that still be modding (hobby) or a job I wonder? Different things in many ways.

njits wrote: you're literally contradicting yourself

"I'm all for modders getting compensation for their work if they wish to monetize it, it's their work after all..."

"No modder has a RIGHT to get anything at all just because they happen to be modders and have uploaded something that others might use or not."

What does that even mean? They have as much right to ask for compensation for their work as people that make effing hats for TF2. Unless someone hired them to do it? What? Are you saying there is no such thing as self employment?

Modding already *is* a job, an unpaid one.

tmtapani wrote: @njits
Way to take things out of context. How am I contradicting myself? If you're going to quote, at least quote the whole thing. And no, no modder has the right for compensation unless they're hired to do it or selling their product in a free market. You can't make something no one asked for and feel that you've got a RIGHT to get compensation for it. The world doesn't work like that. You can't just invent a job for yourself and throw a tantrum when no one wants to give you money for it.

Isvenah wrote: And now you are beeing just as unfair as the part of the players you despise.

Must have missed all the "I think the modders should be compensated (if they feel they should be, or whatever works for you), BUT: (here insert a long list of why Bethesda/Valve solution is awful). And I'm not opting here for "either donations or nothing at all". If someone is set on selling it, go right ahead. But that makes the relation modder - customer much more difficult, since the customer is not just a greedy player. In this glorious capitalism customer has rights.

First rule of dealing with a group of people, buddy: don't generalise.

Azulyn wrote: lol modding was a hobby
kinda miss the simple ol' days of morrowind

njits wrote: Actually, you CAN. And it is up to the consumer to determine if they believe it is worth their money or not.

And give a tantrum? Are you shitting me? You think modders gave a tantrum? Go ask about Chesko's death threat filled inbox.

Who's hiring musicians? Who's hiring artists? Who's hiring entrepreneurs? Your argument that you can only get payed when someone hires you is ridiculous.

njits wrote: "as the *part* of the players you despise."

"don't generalise."

So first you're pointing out that I'm upset with a *portion* of this community but then you go out of your way to say I'm generalizing? OF COURSE it's not as straight forward as putting a price point on a mod and calling it a day. I actually pointed that out in my original post. But the act of asking for compensation and getting payed for modifications is valid and is a choice on the part of the creator that has to exist. I can't blame any modder from pulling their work from Nexus now. Having people now proclaim that "modding is a hobby, it should always be free!" etc is wrong. You cannot dictate what modders are or aren't, that is up to them. They want to ask for money for their mods? More power to them.

It's "generalize" btw.

tmtapani wrote: Oh ffs. Njits, that was the whole point. If you want money, you have to sell a product. A product that people want to buy and pay for. Why should you give money to a musician or an artist JUST BECAUSE they make music and art? Or mods in this matter. The product has to have a market and people willing to pay for it. You don't just get to have anything by default.

UberSmaug wrote: Say I make a painting no one asked me to make. but I take it down to the street fair put a price tag on it. Someone walks by and sees it and really likes it and wants to hang it in his house. But he doesn't want to pay for it because he didn't ask me to make it. He tells me I don't have a right to ask money for it because painting is just a hobby. How is this not completely rude and disrespectful.

njits wrote: "Why should you give money to a musician or an artist JUST BECAUSE they make music and art?|

What the hell does that even mean? Are you serious? That's how the world works! You pay for admission to a concert, pay for Spotify, pay for iTunes. And you GET THE PRODUCT.

SahKuh wrote: Why are you putting a price tag on it when no one else has done so in the past years?

njits wrote: Why are you asking why he wants to make a living off of his hobby? Is that a difficult question for you? is that a hard concept to grasp? How do you think movies, theater, paintings, ANYTHING artistic became a "market" ? Because the artists started asking compensation for their work, because they deemed it worthy of compensation.

They have the RIGHT to do that, and it is your RIGHT to say. "Nah, that's not worth my money."

Isvenah wrote: I'm not a native speaker, but I don't think that should matter here, does it? Sorry for mangling English, if that brings you comfort.

Secondly, I pointed out that it is only a part you despise. You wrote "This community has showed it's true face these past couple of weeks." by which (I'm guessing) you meant a group full of hateful, entitled people. But as I wrote, it's a part of them. I don't expect anyone to check if that's a bigger or smaller half... um... part, but they obviously make so much more noise then the others. Enough to get them noticed. There is also this part which doesn't give a damn, becouse they are busy playing, or the part that is busy at work, or every other part of this so called group.

In case it's hard to tell, it's not some kind of attack on your person. I just belive that there is time and place for scolding, and then there is the internet. Where trolls roam free and modders are oppressed. What is wrong if you ask me.

tmtapani wrote: @ Ubersmaug

That's selling your product. If someone wants it, they pay for it. That's how the market works. The customer isn't forced to buy the painting just because you made one.

@ Njits

And the same goes for music and other things as well. The fact that someone makes something doesn't mean I'm obligated to pay for it. Unless I want the product. But there is no point in arguing about that with you, is there? I think I'm done with this.

njits wrote: You're somehow thinking that I'm arguing that when someone asks money for something you HAVE to pay for it. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying, is that person HAS to have the OPTION of asking money for his work. Whether YOU want to or not is an entirely DIFFERENT matter.

I don't think I can make this any clearer.

tmtapani wrote: @Njits

Alright then, it seems like we finally agree on those things. A good day to you as well.

UberSmaug wrote: So someone else come along. He likes it too. Says he will give me 10 bucks for it. Now the first guy starts throwing a fit. "NO NO NO NO NO you cant do that NOooooooo. I wont allow it." Starts kicking stuff over threatening to hurt people. So bad that they shut the whole fair down. How is that acceptable.

njits wrote: No problem, good day sir.

mljh11 wrote: Quote @njits:
"People have the RIGHT to ask for compensation for their work."

Not when it comes to modding. Not by a long shot.

Are you forgetting that it was only up until a few days ago that people DIDN'T have any rights to make money off of Skyrim mods?

As was the case with The Sims, if people didn't get express legal permission to sell derivative works (which is what mods are commonly thought to be) for money, the developers / publishers of the game can shut them down.

Just so we're clear: Modders have NO legal right to monetary compensation for mods unless expressly given permission by the original devs. So, getting compensated for work (to use your phrasing) is very much the exception rather than the norm in the modding world.

You might be tempted to say that my point above is moot, since Bethesda did give modders permission to sell their mods, therefore Skyrim modders did have rights. But you'd be wrong, at least on one count... because Beth and Valve did not sort out legal grey areas that would've proven to be stumbling blocks to this, like for example if a paid mod required assets from another mod for promised features (see Chesko's fishing mod). Because such a situation has - to my knowledge - never been contested in a court of law, I don't think anyone can say for certain whether the first mod author really does have full legal rights to any compensation at all. And the fact is that a whole bunch of Skyrim mods absolutely require other mods in order to function properly, so if anyone wants to loudly proclaim that mod authors definitely have rights to compensation, this is a hurdle they have to cross first.

njits wrote: So what you're saying is they DO have the right to sell their mods but it's legally a lot more complicated than other games?

Here's a quote from my original post:

"Legally it's complicated and the process for creating and setting up a platform for payed mods requires more thought than what Bethesda and Valve did."

Again, there are two different arguments going on here.

A) Modders have every right to ask for compensation for their work as any other artist does.

B) How does this all legally even work?

Valve and Bethesda kinda didn't put a lot of thought into B and just hoped it would work, it failed miserably though because of the exact reasons you just explained. That still doesn't change the fact that modders have every right to ask for compensation. And I've still not seen a single argument against that fact.

Barihawk wrote: While I have not modded for Skyrim, I did create content for Star Trek: Legacy as part of a mod team and made individual mods for Bridge Commander and am known in those communities. What I created, I created with absolutely no expectation of compensation. I created my mods because it was something I wanted for my gameplay and then I shared those creations with others.

I disagree with the "right" of modders to demand compensation. The entire point of modding is that it is a hobby. And if it ceases to be a hobby, then it is work. And you should be compensated for doing work...which is why you type up a resume and go out and seek employment.

Modding is like building a cabinet in your garage or painting models. It's supposed to be fun, and you can share what you've created with others to appreciate and enjoy.

But I'm old school. Now it's all about reputation. Where if there's an inkling of drama a mod author (who says they are doing it for the community) will withdraw all their work in a hissy fit. Back on Filefront if I had drama with mods (which I did and was actually banned for over a month until I appealed to corporate) I still kept all my works up. It seems like people do modding for reputation rather than enjoyment. I read comments or FAQs and it's like modders feel that the work is a second job. It shouldn't be.

But monetization of mods is something I just can't agree with. I'd love to have gotten a cut of my work, but that is not why I did it. It's also something I didn't expect to get.

So in summary: If modding to a modder is anything but a hobby, they might need to step back and re-evaulate their priorites. If you are so talented that you feel that compensation is needed, do what others have and start up a game and sell it. Others have and it will look good on resumes for actual games developers.

sunshinenbrick wrote: Might I add that it is personal choice whether you upload files.

Azradun wrote: @njits

It's bad that Chesko got death threats. It's also bad that he tried to sell something based on other's work in a community that's built on sharing.

And he clearly knew what he was doing, but thought "oh, what the hell, maybe I can get away with it".

mljh11 wrote: @njits:
"A) Modders have every right to ask for compensation for their work as any other artist does."

You're making a blanket statement that is just untrue. Modders as a whole DON'T have every right to compensation. Yes, other artists in different fields have such rights under the law. But modders generally don't.

So your blanket statement is either ignorant or just disingenuous.

I don't know whether you truly understand where rights come from. Just because you think you've done work doesn't mean you suddenly accrue the rights to ask for compensation for it.

frostsmith wrote: Valve took the mods off. If it was making a ton of money, wouldn't you think that they would've kept it going? It seems to me that calling your users entitled babies is a bad idea, as now they won't buy your mods even if they accepted it.

Fowldragon wrote: You really have a critical thinking issue.Everyone involved was protesting the idea of the Way this went down Most of those protesting were/are fine with a donation system that is more prominent...Very few people are so tied to getting a 'FREE LUNCH" that they feel they should be entitled to it ad infinitum...SO, charging the entire community as you have done may not necessarily mean that you are an absolute IDIOT, you may simply have a LEARNING DISABILITY.

njits wrote: @mljh11

"A) Modders have every right to ASK for compensation for their work as any other artist does."

ASK, ASK, ASK.

My original post was targeted towards the vitriolic and insane behavior of some very shitty people on here against modders asking for compensation for their work. SURE, they don't have legally and technically that right. But neither do Let's Players. It is a legally muddy place.

But they have the right to ASK as much as anyone else for it and NOT be bombarded by a bunch of insane maniacs with "FREEDOM!!!" badges.

njits wrote: @Fowldragon

Have you read any of the comments on here, on the Steam Workshop or Reddit? There is some GamerGate level circle jerk going on with people screaming "WE WON!!!" There was *most definitely* a large group of people wanting payed mods to go away simply because they don't want change or to pay for their mods. And they had to absolutely make sure that every modder with the IDEA of monetizing their work was the biggest betrayal they could do towards Skyrim modding. Saying that people only protested against the *way* in which Valve offered payed mods (which was really flawed) is simply not true. READING COMPREHENSION.

sunshinenbrick wrote: I think maybe the sentiment from many was that they just were amazed that Bethesda was actually listening to the communites doubts on how the (badly) implemented system was exploititive and unregulated. I don't think they would have just taken it down because some kids were screaming death threats at people.

There have been some very thorough and comprehensive discussions on all aspects of this over the weekend, all of which Valve and Bethesda (and some of the media) were watching and analysing.

drmmrdude22 wrote: Modders don't have any legal right to claim they should get compensated for their work. I think this point has been raised quite a few times, but to reiterate: they are using Bethesda's IP - w/o Bethesda's say so no mod author would be legally allowed to charge for their mods. This is ENTIRELY different than say, a musician, or an artist, or some other creative type. The scenario mentioned about painting something and selling it on the street is entirely different than a modder creating something and trying to sell it - the painter OWNS THE PAINTING BECAUSE ITS THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. They, therefore, have a right to sell it. If someone isn't willing to pay for it then they don't get it.

Honestly, maybe its just the goggles of nostalgia but the Nexus and modding Bethesda's games were so much better back in the days of Morrowind and Oblivion. Usually communities become better when diversity is brought in but there are so many viewpoints now (some of which are completely against what the Nexus was originally created for) have made this community become quite toxic. 10 years ago (and still to this day) I would never charge or even accept donations for a mod. And its entirely against what this community was founded on to do so.

MrGrymReaper wrote: There's also the fact of the EULA, GPL, Creative Commons and/ or other licensing terms for software used when making the modification (Maya 3D, Poser as well as other software). As those resources as well may not allow the content produced to be sold for monetary gain.

This is also dependent on the edition of the software used by the modder in the first place (Free, Lite, Standard, Pro, Premium, Ultimate etc). In addition the target audience of the license terms and the software edition.

The reason being the software's developer may or may not allow the content produced using the software to be sold for monetary gain. In addition they may or may not allow the monetary gain sale distribution to be for a large number of people.

In addition in the case of Creative Commons License an author of piece of content or software can restrict commercial sale of said work. They may even have a clause preventing commercial sale of content produced using said piece of software (added after fact in a custom document).

@njits
I didn't omit those who are of that mind, you ignored my point. NEXUS shouldn't be ashamed... Nexus is not a GROUP-THINK..it is comprised of a broad range of opinion and position...not to mention levels of Maturity. Lumping everyone into the same mindset is the failure of critical thought I was addressing.

[MrGrymReaper]

In response to post #24757069. #24757229, #24757314, #24757684, #24758614, #24758724, #24758949, #24759229 are all replies on the same post.

phellen wrote:

Laereal wrote: Thank you for posting this as I agree with everything you said.

MacAban wrote: Excellent post. I too agree with all your points.

MrGrymReaper wrote: @phellen - I also agree but not with paid mods as I can't really afford to always be donating or paying, for modifications as my personal situation won't allow it.

Even if could afford to pay I wouldn't buy mods especially from companies which give a massive percentage to the themselves and an insignificant percentage in comparison the mod's creator. Though I would donate and depending on my current financial situation may do it regularly though likely it would be as a one off.

I need to watch my finances as currently I'm out of work following an accident in the past.

Though I have been around on the nexus for a long time most likely first join back during Fallout 3 and/or Oblivion based nexus generation. Later I added the Fallout New Vegas game followed by Skyrim. I have done some mods on Morrowind though not so many also was the victim during the tough growing times (when the site would crash regularly).

I even became a Premium member back when the site's Lifetime Membership was around the cost of a new video game (£30.00-£40.00) circa 2006-2009.

phellen wrote: I see what your saying, but at the same time those who use the argument. "I can't afford to buy (X), so (X) should never be sold for money" are simply wrong.

Fill that (X) in with anything else besides the word "mod", and you'll see what I mean.

As far as money is concerned as I said, when it comes to showing appreciation to modders on the nexus for their work there are many other ways to do this that don't involve donations per say. Commenting, endorsing, voting, sharing pictures, helping out by answering others questions, ect...

MrGrymReaper wrote: @phellen - You try paying for something on a tight budget with a large combination of mods. Which get used together in order to find conflicts and test modifications.

Testing modifications becomes much harder if you had to pay for a modification in order to use it (this not only the mod being tested but also the other used as part of the test).

You may not know this but I help out across multiple communities giving comments and feedback. Suggestions where I can and are currently on a team of modders working on the new episode of Maids II: Deception.

Hopefully they haven't been too badly affected (if at all) by what has happened in recent days.

phellen wrote: True, I think those are both legitimate concerns, and would be something that modders would have to think about and address long before ever choosing to sell or not sell their mods (if it's ever allowed again). Compatibility would have to be really clear for sure.

Keep in mind I'm not speaking to you personally, or pointing the finger in your direction in any way. I'm just addressing the majority of the people who were freaking out majorly at modders for wanting to take part in the "new" (now old) system. They had every right to do so, and still deserve users respect. Users have no right to make demands on what modders do with their own mods.

pokenar wrote: Timing and Execution were my biggest problems, the former being something that valve explicitly admitted was a problem.

@phellen - I tend to when testing modification go through the quests and see if they can be made to break (in a way which a player may do them).

[Brasscatcher]

In response to post #24753409. #24753989, #24754089, #24754939 are all replies on the same post.

shinji72 wrote:

np11 wrote: Probably the consoles, too. I'm also pretty sure they're only using the workshop data. I seriously doubt only 8% of the people playing Skyrim on PC are using mods.

SiniVII wrote: There's no way that's an accurate statement, and frankly I don't think there's any way they can make an accurate statement.

shinji72 wrote: Yeah. Probably it includes the consoles. And that was the market I think they were pointing at, in the long run. Not the somewhat skilled Nexus users... but the console peasants.

@np that makes sense, actually. I hadn't thought in those terms., Workshop *would* be the only way they'd have the ability to see who's doing what.

Speaking in terms not including the recent debacle, the workshop is a shitshow! Who in their right mind would use it for modding if they knew of alternatives? I don't know a single person who plays without modding, but I also don't know anyone who relies on steam for their mod content.