Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

Actually, Shadow, we do know how it would have played out. Research what happened to the Sims modding community when the same pay-for setup was implemented, and others. This isn't the first time this has been tried. It just doesn't work. I've written a few posts on exactly why it won't (and frankly can't) work, but I won't go into that again here.

[perrob]

In response to post #24862529. #24864589, #24864824 are all replies on the same post.

EvilDeadAsh34 wrote: Money will eventually destroy everything. Greed is an amazing thing... No one can do anything just for the pure joy of it anymore. Every action has to be monetized. Gimme more, gimme anything, just gimme.

I will never pay for a user created mod. It does not matter what the mod would be, how epic it is, how integral to the game it could possibly be, i will not be forced to pay for them. Donations, okay. Paywalls, hell no.

And to the people who support paid mods i have one thing to say. Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

fireundubh wrote: Greed is about excess. Wanting financial rewards for a job well done, for creativity, for talent, for technical skill, and for entertaining you isn't greed. That's self-respect.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Before this whole debacle, mod authors were just fine with creating mods because it was a hobby they enjoyed doing. Their "compensation" was the enjoyment of doing it. Like collecting stamps, planting award-winning roses, or *insert some hobby here*. You don't have to share the fruits of your hobby with anyone, but you chose to engage in that hobby, and that doesn't necessarily entitle you to financial compensation. If you want to get paid for doing this sort of thing, you should try and get a job at a game company.

Vesuvius- really? You can speak, conclusively, for every mod author out there?

No. You don't, can't, and you're provably wrong regardless - several mod authors signed up *BEFORE* this all blew up. Several have tried - on the Nexus!!! - to charge via donations - only sending out updates to those who donated. While, IMO, that's wrong, it has happened in the past here, showing that some authors have always wanted a way to charge for their work.

There are many mod authors who, while doing it for the love of it, or the experience of it, or whatever!, are ok with giving it away. Some though, also like having the option to charge for something they spend more time on.

The 'get a job' thing is just total crap. What if they have a job? Are they not then entitled to still make some money from the thing they created? What if they can't get a job - through ill health, disability, familial circumstance, or whatever that is none of your or my business? Still not allowed to charge?

I think you need to apply a little empathy when thinking something through from another's point of view. It's startlingly unfair to accuse mod authors of greed if they ask for money.

And in the end, if you don't want to pay for the mod... don't pay for it. That part, at least, IS in your control.

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409, #24866494 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Actually, Shadow, we do know how it would have played out. Research what happened to the Sims modding community when the same pay-for setup was implemented, and others. This isn't the first time this has been tried. It just doesn't work. I've written a few posts on exactly why it won't (and frankly can't) work, but I won't go into that again here.

Well, Bullpcp, my analogy was based on the reactions from modders post-them being able to sell their mods on Steam.

But since we are splitting hairs, you are correct. Bethesda allowed modders to sell their mods for a short time, and then took the opportunity away. They get to do that. It is their right if you read your contract. And it's also the right of customers (people who have bought Skyrim) to tell Bethesda they don't want a pay-for mod system on Steam. Bethesda has no obligation to listen to their customers, but they did, and took it down. If you don't like how this played out, you should take it up with Bethesda, don't you think?

[Shadowmane01]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409, #24866494, #24866644 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Actually, Shadow, we do know how it would have played out. Research what happened to the Sims modding community when the same pay-for setup was implemented, and others. This isn't the first time this has been tried. It just doesn't work. I've written a few posts on exactly why it won't (and frankly can't) work, but I won't go into that again here.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, my analogy was based on the reactions from modders post-them being able to sell their mods on Steam.

But since we are splitting hairs, you are correct. Bethesda allowed modders to sell their mods for a short time, and then took the opportunity away. They get to do that. It is their right if you read your contract. And it's also the right of customers (people who have bought Skyrim) to tell Bethesda they don't want a pay-for mod system on Steam. Bethesda has no obligation to listen to their customers, but they did, and took it down. If you don't like how this played out, you should take it up with Bethesda, don't you think?

Actually I don't agree but there you go we don't have to. What I hope we can agree on is that some mod makers have been savaged in the jaws of big business and savaged by elements of the nexus community. Some of the behaviour on here over the past few days has been both shameful and unwarranted.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409, #24866494, #24866644, #24866669 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Actually, Shadow, we do know how it would have played out. Research what happened to the Sims modding community when the same pay-for setup was implemented, and others. This isn't the first time this has been tried. It just doesn't work. I've written a few posts on exactly why it won't (and frankly can't) work, but I won't go into that again here.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, my analogy was based on the reactions from modders post-them being able to sell their mods on Steam.

But since we are splitting hairs, you are correct. Bethesda allowed modders to sell their mods for a short time, and then took the opportunity away. They get to do that. It is their right if you read your contract. And it's also the right of customers (people who have bought Skyrim) to tell Bethesda they don't want a pay-for mod system on Steam. Bethesda has no obligation to listen to their customers, but they did, and took it down. If you don't like how this played out, you should take it up with Bethesda, don't you think?

Shadowmane01 wrote: Actually I don't agree but there you go we don't have to. What I hope we can agree on is that some mod makers have been savaged in the jaws of big business and savaged by elements of the nexus community. Some of the behaviour on here over the past few days has been both shameful and unwarranted.

Vesuvius1745

For you to end up with fewer high quality mods under a paid for mod system a substantial number of modders who currently do it for free, still an option under a paid for mod system, would have to suddenly stop modding or reduce the quality and quantity of their mods while simultaneously a fewer number of new paid for modders would have to create fewer and lower quality mods.

The only way your outcome to logically occur is that monetary incentives will NOT entice new modders to produce newer and better mods and that the monetary incentives will simultaneously disincentivise modders that do it for free. I find this... unlikely.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409, #24866494, #24866644, #24866669, #24866709 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Actually, Shadow, we do know how it would have played out. Research what happened to the Sims modding community when the same pay-for setup was implemented, and others. This isn't the first time this has been tried. It just doesn't work. I've written a few posts on exactly why it won't (and frankly can't) work, but I won't go into that again here.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, my analogy was based on the reactions from modders post-them being able to sell their mods on Steam.

But since we are splitting hairs, you are correct. Bethesda allowed modders to sell their mods for a short time, and then took the opportunity away. They get to do that. It is their right if you read your contract. And it's also the right of customers (people who have bought Skyrim) to tell Bethesda they don't want a pay-for mod system on Steam. Bethesda has no obligation to listen to their customers, but they did, and took it down. If you don't like how this played out, you should take it up with Bethesda, don't you think?

Shadowmane01 wrote: Actually I don't agree but there you go we don't have to. What I hope we can agree on is that some mod makers have been savaged in the jaws of big business and savaged by elements of the nexus community. Some of the behaviour on here over the past few days has been both shameful and unwarranted.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

For you to end up with fewer high quality mods under a paid for mod system a substantial number of modders who currently do it for free, still an option under a paid for mod system, would have to suddenly stop modding or reduce the quality and quantity of their mods while simultaneously a fewer number of new paid for modders would have to create fewer and lower quality mods.

The only way your outcome to logically occur is that monetary incentives will NOT entice new modders to produce newer and better mods and that the monetary incentives will simultaneously disincentivise modders that do it for free. I find this... unlikely.

Shadowmane01 Spot on that garbage is soon identified on the internet and a poorly made low quality mod would not sell well.

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409, #24866494, #24866644, #24866669, #24866709, #24866764 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Actually, Shadow, we do know how it would have played out. Research what happened to the Sims modding community when the same pay-for setup was implemented, and others. This isn't the first time this has been tried. It just doesn't work. I've written a few posts on exactly why it won't (and frankly can't) work, but I won't go into that again here.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, my analogy was based on the reactions from modders post-them being able to sell their mods on Steam.

But since we are splitting hairs, you are correct. Bethesda allowed modders to sell their mods for a short time, and then took the opportunity away. They get to do that. It is their right if you read your contract. And it's also the right of customers (people who have bought Skyrim) to tell Bethesda they don't want a pay-for mod system on Steam. Bethesda has no obligation to listen to their customers, but they did, and took it down. If you don't like how this played out, you should take it up with Bethesda, don't you think?

Shadowmane01 wrote: Actually I don't agree but there you go we don't have to. What I hope we can agree on is that some mod makers have been savaged in the jaws of big business and savaged by elements of the nexus community. Some of the behaviour on here over the past few days has been both shameful and unwarranted.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

For you to end up with fewer high quality mods under a paid for mod system a substantial number of modders who currently do it for free, still an option under a paid for mod system, would have to suddenly stop modding or reduce the quality and quantity of their mods while simultaneously a fewer number of new paid for modders would have to create fewer and lower quality mods.

The only way your outcome to logically occur is that monetary incentives will NOT entice new modders to produce newer and better mods and that the monetary incentives will simultaneously disincentivise modders that do it for free. I find this... unlikely.

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 Spot on that garbage is soon identified on the internet and a poorly made low quality mod would not sell well.

Bullpcp, you find it unlikely, but that is exactly how this plays out.

First, you get mod and utility/resource authors (such as SKSE, ENB, FORE etc.) who won't charge, and when they see others charging, or using their material, they'll simply stop updating their utilities or creating new mods. Because why should they work for free for others to make a profit?

Then you get the modders who say, "Since so-and-so only sells his mods, why should I release MY mods for free?"

It's the Tragedy of the Commons phenomenon, and it causes the flow of free mods to slow to a trickle, and then stop.

But the mods will still be on a site for-pay. And like we have seen historically, the profit the people are making will drop. The reason it will drop is because the more mods that are made available for-pay, the slice of each individual's piece of the pie gets smaller and smaller (even assuming Bethesda doesn't lower your percentage) It's a zero-sum game. Most gamers simply cannot afford to pay $1.99 for all 100+ mods they are using. So they will have to pick and choose. Save for a few exceptional mods, most mods will sit on the site and rarely get downloaded. Not because they are bad, but because most gamers simply cannot afford to buy 1) a $60 game, 2) $40 for every expansion, and then 3) $1.99 for every good mod out there (and there are a LOT of good mods). It adds up, and adds up quickly.

What this eventually means is since (most) of the mod authors aren't making much money, they will simply stop doing it.

And after awhile, like we have seen in other instances, both the free community AND the paid-for community will die.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409, #24866494, #24866644, #24866669, #24866709, #24866764, #24866984 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Actually, Shadow, we do know how it would have played out. Research what happened to the Sims modding community when the same pay-for setup was implemented, and others. This isn't the first time this has been tried. It just doesn't work. I've written a few posts on exactly why it won't (and frankly can't) work, but I won't go into that again here.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, my analogy was based on the reactions from modders post-them being able to sell their mods on Steam.

But since we are splitting hairs, you are correct. Bethesda allowed modders to sell their mods for a short time, and then took the opportunity away. They get to do that. It is their right if you read your contract. And it's also the right of customers (people who have bought Skyrim) to tell Bethesda they don't want a pay-for mod system on Steam. Bethesda has no obligation to listen to their customers, but they did, and took it down. If you don't like how this played out, you should take it up with Bethesda, don't you think?

Shadowmane01 wrote: Actually I don't agree but there you go we don't have to. What I hope we can agree on is that some mod makers have been savaged in the jaws of big business and savaged by elements of the nexus community. Some of the behaviour on here over the past few days has been both shameful and unwarranted.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

For you to end up with fewer high quality mods under a paid for mod system a substantial number of modders who currently do it for free, still an option under a paid for mod system, would have to suddenly stop modding or reduce the quality and quantity of their mods while simultaneously a fewer number of new paid for modders would have to create fewer and lower quality mods.

The only way your outcome to logically occur is that monetary incentives will NOT entice new modders to produce newer and better mods and that the monetary incentives will simultaneously disincentivise modders that do it for free. I find this... unlikely.

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 Spot on that garbage is soon identified on the internet and a poorly made low quality mod would not sell well.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Bullpcp, you find it unlikely, but that is exactly how this plays out.

First, you get mod and utility/resource authors (such as SKSE, ENB, FORE etc.) who won't charge, and when they see others charging, or using their material, they'll simply stop updating their utilities or creating new mods. Because why should they work for free for others to make a profit?

Then you get the modders who say, "Since so-and-so only sells his mods, why should I release MY mods for free?"

It's the Tragedy of the Commons phenomenon, and it causes the flow of free mods to slow to a trickle, and then stop.

But the mods will still be on a site for-pay. And like we have seen historically, the profit the people are making will drop. The reason it will drop is because the more mods that are made available for-pay, the slice of each individual's piece of the pie gets smaller and smaller (even assuming Bethesda doesn't lower your percentage) It's a zero-sum game. Most gamers simply cannot afford to pay $1.99 for all 100+ mods they are using. So they will have to pick and choose. Save for a few exceptional mods, most mods will sit on the site and rarely get downloaded. Not because they are bad, but because most gamers simply cannot afford to buy 1) a $60 game, 2) $40 for every expansion, and then 3) $1.99 for every good mod out there (and there are a LOT of good mods). It adds up, and adds up quickly.

What this eventually means is since (most) of the mod authors aren't making much money, they will simply stop doing it.

And after awhile, like we have seen in other instances, both the free community AND the paid-for community will die.

Vesuvius1745
The difference between someone selling something without a license and being shouted down by the license holder and someone being sought out to sell something for the license holder… splitting hairs… indeed.

Since I never argued nor believed Bethesda didn’t have the right to withdraw their consent to allow paid for modding I’m not sure who the comment is written for. Since I never implicitly or explicitly stated that Bethesda’s customer should be censored again I’m unsure of who the comment is for. Bethesda is under no obligation to listen to their customers… again check. In fact I’m unsure who has argued otherwise in these comment sections. Perhaps we should find them.

As far as taking it up with Bethesda. If you believed Bethesda listened to their customers, and that most customers like free stuff, I would think influencing customers would be just as if not more effective.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409, #24866494, #24866644, #24866669, #24866709, #24866764, #24866984, #24867029 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Actually, Shadow, we do know how it would have played out. Research what happened to the Sims modding community when the same pay-for setup was implemented, and others. This isn't the first time this has been tried. It just doesn't work. I've written a few posts on exactly why it won't (and frankly can't) work, but I won't go into that again here.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, my analogy was based on the reactions from modders post-them being able to sell their mods on Steam.

But since we are splitting hairs, you are correct. Bethesda allowed modders to sell their mods for a short time, and then took the opportunity away. They get to do that. It is their right if you read your contract. And it's also the right of customers (people who have bought Skyrim) to tell Bethesda they don't want a pay-for mod system on Steam. Bethesda has no obligation to listen to their customers, but they did, and took it down. If you don't like how this played out, you should take it up with Bethesda, don't you think?

Shadowmane01 wrote: Actually I don't agree but there you go we don't have to. What I hope we can agree on is that some mod makers have been savaged in the jaws of big business and savaged by elements of the nexus community. Some of the behaviour on here over the past few days has been both shameful and unwarranted.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

For you to end up with fewer high quality mods under a paid for mod system a substantial number of modders who currently do it for free, still an option under a paid for mod system, would have to suddenly stop modding or reduce the quality and quantity of their mods while simultaneously a fewer number of new paid for modders would have to create fewer and lower quality mods.

The only way your outcome to logically occur is that monetary incentives will NOT entice new modders to produce newer and better mods and that the monetary incentives will simultaneously disincentivise modders that do it for free. I find this... unlikely.

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 Spot on that garbage is soon identified on the internet and a poorly made low quality mod would not sell well.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Bullpcp, you find it unlikely, but that is exactly how this plays out.

First, you get mod and utility/resource authors (such as SKSE, ENB, FORE etc.) who won't charge, and when they see others charging, or using their material, they'll simply stop updating their utilities or creating new mods. Because why should they work for free for others to make a profit?

Then you get the modders who say, "Since so-and-so only sells his mods, why should I release MY mods for free?"

It's the Tragedy of the Commons phenomenon, and it causes the flow of free mods to slow to a trickle, and then stop.

But the mods will still be on a site for-pay. And like we have seen historically, the profit the people are making will drop. The reason it will drop is because the more mods that are made available for-pay, the slice of each individual's piece of the pie gets smaller and smaller (even assuming Bethesda doesn't lower your percentage) It's a zero-sum game. Most gamers simply cannot afford to pay $1.99 for all 100+ mods they are using. So they will have to pick and choose. Save for a few exceptional mods, most mods will sit on the site and rarely get downloaded. Not because they are bad, but because most gamers simply cannot afford to buy 1) a $60 game, 2) $40 for every expansion, and then 3) $1.99 for every good mod out there (and there are a LOT of good mods). It adds up, and adds up quickly.

What this eventually means is since (most) of the mod authors aren't making much money, they will simply stop doing it.

And after awhile, like we have seen in other instances, both the free community AND the paid-for community will die.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745
The difference between someone selling something without a license and being shouted down by the license holder and someone being sought out to sell something for the license holder… splitting hairs… indeed.

Since I never argued nor believed Bethesda didn’t have the right to withdraw their consent to allow paid for modding I’m not sure who the comment is written for. Since I never implicitly or explicitly stated that Bethesda’s customer should be censored again I’m unsure of who the comment is for. Bethesda is under no obligation to listen to their customers… again check. In fact I’m unsure who has argued otherwise in these comment sections. Perhaps we should find them.

As far as taking it up with Bethesda. If you believed Bethesda listened to their customers, and that most customers like free stuff, I would think influencing customers would be just as if not more effective.

Vesuvius1745
You seem to be ignoring those times when it did work out. Like DOTA.

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399, #24866409, #24866494, #24866644, #24866669, #24866709, #24866764, #24866984, #24867029, #24867119 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Actually, Shadow, we do know how it would have played out. Research what happened to the Sims modding community when the same pay-for setup was implemented, and others. This isn't the first time this has been tried. It just doesn't work. I've written a few posts on exactly why it won't (and frankly can't) work, but I won't go into that again here.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, my analogy was based on the reactions from modders post-them being able to sell their mods on Steam.

But since we are splitting hairs, you are correct. Bethesda allowed modders to sell their mods for a short time, and then took the opportunity away. They get to do that. It is their right if you read your contract. And it's also the right of customers (people who have bought Skyrim) to tell Bethesda they don't want a pay-for mod system on Steam. Bethesda has no obligation to listen to their customers, but they did, and took it down. If you don't like how this played out, you should take it up with Bethesda, don't you think?

Shadowmane01 wrote: Actually I don't agree but there you go we don't have to. What I hope we can agree on is that some mod makers have been savaged in the jaws of big business and savaged by elements of the nexus community. Some of the behaviour on here over the past few days has been both shameful and unwarranted.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

For you to end up with fewer high quality mods under a paid for mod system a substantial number of modders who currently do it for free, still an option under a paid for mod system, would have to suddenly stop modding or reduce the quality and quantity of their mods while simultaneously a fewer number of new paid for modders would have to create fewer and lower quality mods.

The only way your outcome to logically occur is that monetary incentives will NOT entice new modders to produce newer and better mods and that the monetary incentives will simultaneously disincentivise modders that do it for free. I find this... unlikely.

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 Spot on that garbage is soon identified on the internet and a poorly made low quality mod would not sell well.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Bullpcp, you find it unlikely, but that is exactly how this plays out.

First, you get mod and utility/resource authors (such as SKSE, ENB, FORE etc.) who won't charge, and when they see others charging, or using their material, they'll simply stop updating their utilities or creating new mods. Because why should they work for free for others to make a profit?

Then you get the modders who say, "Since so-and-so only sells his mods, why should I release MY mods for free?"

It's the Tragedy of the Commons phenomenon, and it causes the flow of free mods to slow to a trickle, and then stop.

But the mods will still be on a site for-pay. And like we have seen historically, the profit the people are making will drop. The reason it will drop is because the more mods that are made available for-pay, the slice of each individual's piece of the pie gets smaller and smaller (even assuming Bethesda doesn't lower your percentage) It's a zero-sum game. Most gamers simply cannot afford to pay $1.99 for all 100+ mods they are using. So they will have to pick and choose. Save for a few exceptional mods, most mods will sit on the site and rarely get downloaded. Not because they are bad, but because most gamers simply cannot afford to buy 1) a $60 game, 2) $40 for every expansion, and then 3) $1.99 for every good mod out there (and there are a LOT of good mods). It adds up, and adds up quickly.

What this eventually means is since (most) of the mod authors aren't making much money, they will simply stop doing it.

And after awhile, like we have seen in other instances, both the free community AND the paid-for community will die.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745
The difference between someone selling something without a license and being shouted down by the license holder and someone being sought out to sell something for the license holder… splitting hairs… indeed.

Since I never argued nor believed Bethesda didn’t have the right to withdraw their consent to allow paid for modding I’m not sure who the comment is written for. Since I never implicitly or explicitly stated that Bethesda’s customer should be censored again I’m unsure of who the comment is for. Bethesda is under no obligation to listen to their customers… again check. In fact I’m unsure who has argued otherwise in these comment sections. Perhaps we should find them.

As far as taking it up with Bethesda. If you believed Bethesda listened to their customers, and that most customers like free stuff, I would think influencing customers would be just as if not more effective.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745
You seem to be ignoring those times when it did work out. Like DOTA.

So Bullpcp, if you agree with everything I stated, what is it exactly you are here arguing about? The sense I am getting here is you feel wronged somehow.