Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[guichong]

In response to post #24862529. #24864589, #24864824, #24866544, #24867284, #24867429, #24867469, #24868034 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.

perrob wrote: 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.

SirTopas wrote: "Money eventually destroys everything."

Right.

Money destroyed the internet. I mean, a lot fewer people have broadband now and there a lot fewer sites to visit on the 'net than 20 years ag...umm.

Well, money definitely destroyed the PC market. There are a lot fewer PC models to choose from and they're more expensive and less capable than they were 20 years ag...nope.

Then money certainly destroyed video gaming in general. There a lot fewer games available on fewer platforms now than there were 20 years ag...uh, wrong again.

"Greed is an amazing thing..."

Yup, sure is. Especially for those who demand that others provide their time and effort to them for free. Doesn't get much greedier than that.

" will not be forced to pay for them."

Nobody has the power to force you to pay for a mod. Pure strawman argument.

tiwa44 wrote: STOP !!!!!!! :)

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Perrob, up until a month ago there was no possibility of mod authors being paid. However, free mods still showed up on the Nexus. Why is that? We can assume several things, such as 1) the mod authors were doing it for the enjoyment of it, or 2) mod authors were doing it to hone their modding skills, or 3) mod authors were doing it for something to put on their resume. Or perhaps a mix of all the above, or some reason not listed here. But I think the above reasons are fairly good assumptions. No where was a monetary incentive in this equation.

Mod authors are not entitled to sell their mods. The reason for this is because you are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish, and by checking that "I agree" button on their EULA, you are accepting a contract which states that Bethesda has a right to dictate how you may (or may not) use the derivative content they allowed you to create.

So the bottom line is if you want to sell mods, you need to ask Bethesda for permission. Crying about it here is like urinating into a strong wind.

EnaiSiaion wrote: Good to know anything we do is worthless to you. I'll add your name to my blacklist.

Many of the user created mods put the developers work to shame. SkyUI and any of the exposure immersion mods are examples. Yet they have the gall to stick out their hand and demand a lion's share of the profits? Ridiculous, and is the reason why i will never buy a mod from the workshop. If they are really serious about wanting to help the mod community grow, they should consider buying out some of the best mods, buy the IP from the modders and implement it into an official DLC bundle and/or their next upcoming title. Problem solved , at little or no extra cost to the consumer base. As much as I want to support modders, i simply find it unrealistic to buy or even donate directly to all of the 100+ mods that i regularly use.

[Deathbringer122]

In response to post #24858414. #24864434, #24867594 are all replies on the same post.

Jokerine wrote: I, for one, am ready to move on indeed. Thanks again for the talk with TB, it was really fun to listen to :)

Elianora wrote: Agreed. I am getting so tired of reading the same crap over and over and people bickering at each other.

WightMage wrote: Here here.

Amen.

The points just keep getting rehashed...we are beating a dead horse.

[EnaiSiaion]

In response to post #24862529. #24864589, #24864824, #24866544, #24867284, #24867429, #24867469, #24868034, #24868259 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.

perrob wrote: 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.

SirTopas wrote: "Money eventually destroys everything."

Right.

Money destroyed the internet. I mean, a lot fewer people have broadband now and there a lot fewer sites to visit on the 'net than 20 years ag...umm.

Well, money definitely destroyed the PC market. There are a lot fewer PC models to choose from and they're more expensive and less capable than they were 20 years ag...nope.

Then money certainly destroyed video gaming in general. There a lot fewer games available on fewer platforms now than there were 20 years ag...uh, wrong again.

"Greed is an amazing thing..."

Yup, sure is. Especially for those who demand that others provide their time and effort to them for free. Doesn't get much greedier than that.

" will not be forced to pay for them."

Nobody has the power to force you to pay for a mod. Pure strawman argument.

tiwa44 wrote: STOP !!!!!!! :)

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Perrob, up until a month ago there was no possibility of mod authors being paid. However, free mods still showed up on the Nexus. Why is that? We can assume several things, such as 1) the mod authors were doing it for the enjoyment of it, or 2) mod authors were doing it to hone their modding skills, or 3) mod authors were doing it for something to put on their resume. Or perhaps a mix of all the above, or some reason not listed here. But I think the above reasons are fairly good assumptions. No where was a monetary incentive in this equation.

Mod authors are not entitled to sell their mods. The reason for this is because you are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish, and by checking that "I agree" button on their EULA, you are accepting a contract which states that Bethesda has a right to dictate how you may (or may not) use the derivative content they allowed you to create.

So the bottom line is if you want to sell mods, you need to ask Bethesda for permission. Crying about it here is like urinating into a strong wind.

EnaiSiaion wrote: Good to know anything we do is worthless to you. I'll add your name to my blacklist.

guichong wrote: Many of the user created mods put the developers work to shame. SkyUI and any of the exposure immersion mods are examples. Yet they have the gall to stick out their hand and demand a lion's share of the profits? Ridiculous, and is the reason why i will never buy a mod from the workshop. If they are really serious about wanting to help the mod community grow, they should consider buying out some of the best mods, buy the IP from the modders and implement it into an official DLC bundle and/or their next upcoming title. Problem solved , at little or no extra cost to the consumer base. As much as I want to support modders, i simply find it unrealistic to buy or even donate directly to all of the 100+ mods that i regularly use.

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.

Too bad there's no enjoyment to be had from releasing a mod for a crowd that tells you to kill yourself for €2.

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

 

 

I want to begin to draw a line under this ordeal. This does not mean I want to forget it ever happened or think that this won't crop up again in the not too distant future. It will. Of course it will. But life on the Nexus must go on, and in order for us to move forward we need to stop talking about the events of the past week so much and continue on where we left off before this all started while trying to pick up the broken pieces in our community.

 

Thank you for this article and for your various insights as well as your efforts (and the efforts of your staff) to try to keep the community a sane place while we were acting quite irrationally as well as with great hostility towards one another.

 

I'll admit, that I have been one of the "dead horse beaters" as of late, by continuing to discuss the situation despite the moment having passed for now, but going forward I will make an effort to put what happened behind me, and avoid participating and or provoking in any such debates/discussions regarding the proposed change (and or elements of it as well as our reactions to it) of allowing mods for Skyrim to be sold.

[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, #24867119, #24867264, #24867654, #24869089, #24869854 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.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: 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.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Ves your above points about pay-for slowly killing mods for a game eco my own concerns . As I stated in principal I'm ok with pay-for that doesn't mean I'm 100% in favour or 100% sure it can work. I don't see it returning for skyrim but its possible we will see it in THS 6 whenever that comes.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745
Since I explicitly stated what I agree with, and I explicitly stated what I disagree with, and why I disagree with you, I'm unsure why there is any confusion. I don't feel wronged. I'm not mad... are you?

Simplely wrote: right on deadash

Vesuvius1745 11

That is exactly how it plays out... except when it doesn't.

"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."

This assumes no one would create the same quality or better mods for profit...or for free.

"Because why should they work for free for others to make a profit?"

If they explicitly state that this is not allowed then "others" would be breaking the law by utilizing their IP.

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

Someone will definitely say that.

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

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory by Garrett Hardin, which states that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource. The term is taken from the title of an article written by Hardin in 1968, which is in turn based upon an essay by a Victorian economist on the effects of unregulated grazing on common land.

"Commons" in this sense has come to mean such resources as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, the office refrigerator, energy or any other shared resource which is not formally regulated; not common land in its agricultural sense.

The only way this would apply is that free mods are somehow a common resource. As far as I know they are not.

"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."

Terrible mods will sell terribly but then again are we worried that a plethora of terrible mods will be behind a paywall? Well made quality mods will sell well for higher prices and the mod makers will make money, empirically one mod made several thousand dollars in a few days.


"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)"

And through this competition the best mods would persist and the best modders be rewarded to make even bigger and better mods.

"It's a zero-sum game."

Not in the traditional sense. People tend to spend a set percentage of their disposable income on entertainment so technically all entertainment expenses on the individual level would be a "zero-sum game" over the short time horizon. Over the long horizon elasticity of demand can change on an individual and aggregate level. People could chose to spend more on entertainment or chose to spend a higher portion of their entertainment budget on mods.

"Most gamers simply cannot afford to pay $1.99 for all 100+ mods they are using."

The market would almost certainly reward a fewer number of more comprehensive higher quality mods. You wouldn’t have 40,000 plus smaller mods of questionable quality selling well but many fewer larger well-made mods. You wouldn’t have any reason to buy 100+ mods. You would only need to install a few percent that would do the same thing better. If you look at the nexus today there are only a few hundred mods that get the most downloads even now.

"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."

Most mods already sit on this site and get rarely downloaded. Lower quality mods would either not sell or be made available for free. Free is still an option. Only truly high quality mods would sell.

"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."

I would rather have a fewer number of large comprehensive high quality mods made by the best mod makers than literally thousands of small nice mods made by people with limited time and energy to devote to mod making. If you look at the nexus many are made to be compatible and some are even being combined already.

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

Mod authors that do if for money and can’t make enough would stop. Mod authors that currently can’t mod because they can’t afford it would start. Mod authors that do it for other reasons would be free to continue.

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

Except for the instance of when they became huge successes instead. I would like to point out that since only 8% of users have ever used a mod. Using a mod (edit) can be difficult in terms of time spent learning the ins and outs of setting up LOOT, embedding Wyre Bash, TESEDIT, reading through literally thousands of mods, checking compatability, downloading patches, installing a few at a time to test, Much of this modding community seems to think Skyrim's success is somehow due to mods. It is not. The brutal reality is that Skyrim doesn't need you as much as you need Skyrim. The other 92% of users would probably thank you for the opportunity to be part of the community. Edited May 2, 2015 by bullpcp

[opal407]

In response to post #24862529. #24864589, #24864824, #24866544, #24867284, #24867429, #24867469, #24868034, #24868259, #24868684 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.

perrob wrote: 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.

SirTopas wrote: "Money eventually destroys everything."

Right.

Money destroyed the internet. I mean, a lot fewer people have broadband now and there a lot fewer sites to visit on the 'net than 20 years ag...umm.

Well, money definitely destroyed the PC market. There are a lot fewer PC models to choose from and they're more expensive and less capable than they were 20 years ag...nope.

Then money certainly destroyed video gaming in general. There a lot fewer games available on fewer platforms now than there were 20 years ag...uh, wrong again.

"Greed is an amazing thing..."

Yup, sure is. Especially for those who demand that others provide their time and effort to them for free. Doesn't get much greedier than that.

" will not be forced to pay for them."

Nobody has the power to force you to pay for a mod. Pure strawman argument.

tiwa44 wrote: STOP !!!!!!! :)

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Perrob, up until a month ago there was no possibility of mod authors being paid. However, free mods still showed up on the Nexus. Why is that? We can assume several things, such as 1) the mod authors were doing it for the enjoyment of it, or 2) mod authors were doing it to hone their modding skills, or 3) mod authors were doing it for something to put on their resume. Or perhaps a mix of all the above, or some reason not listed here. But I think the above reasons are fairly good assumptions. No where was a monetary incentive in this equation.

Mod authors are not entitled to sell their mods. The reason for this is because you are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish, and by checking that "I agree" button on their EULA, you are accepting a contract which states that Bethesda has a right to dictate how you may (or may not) use the derivative content they allowed you to create.

So the bottom line is if you want to sell mods, you need to ask Bethesda for permission. Crying about it here is like urinating into a strong wind.

EnaiSiaion wrote: Good to know anything we do is worthless to you. I'll add your name to my blacklist.

guichong wrote: Many of the user created mods put the developers work to shame. SkyUI and any of the exposure immersion mods are examples. Yet they have the gall to stick out their hand and demand a lion's share of the profits? Ridiculous, and is the reason why i will never buy a mod from the workshop. If they are really serious about wanting to help the mod community grow, they should consider buying out some of the best mods, buy the IP from the modders and implement it into an official DLC bundle and/or their next upcoming title. Problem solved , at little or no extra cost to the consumer base. As much as I want to support modders, i simply find it unrealistic to buy or even donate directly to all of the 100+ mods that i regularly use.

EnaiSiaion 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.

Too bad there's no enjoyment to be had from releasing a mod for a crowd that tells you to kill yourself for €2.

What about Falskaar, or Wyrmstooth? THose are both full-sized DLC mods that would go for a retail price of $20 at least. Remember TES IV Oblivion's Shivering Isles DLC? Falskaar and Wyrmstooth are similar. The only difference is that they aren't marketed by Bethesda. I would gladly pay for Falskaar. Sure, people would be angry that is was free and now it's payed, but what if another DLC sized mod was released? Something different? Would you pay for it then, since it never was free in the first place? Now, I agree that smaller mods should not be allowed to be put behind a paywall. And by small I mean texture mods and reskins, only because those are some of the tiniest mods that are out there. This isn't Minecraft on the Xbox people. Don't charge for skins. It's not cool. They don't change the game at all, and unless they change every single weapon in the game, I don't think it's worth money. Maybe there are some fun little mods out there (exploding chickens for example) that would be $1. Eh, it's the laugh factor. But yea...my opinion, by the way.

[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, #24867119, #24867264, #24867654, #24868944 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.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: 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.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Ves your above points about pay-for slowly killing mods for a game eco my own concerns . As I stated in principal I'm ok with pay-for that doesn't mean I'm 100% in favour or 100% sure it can work. I don't see it returning for skyrim but its possible we will see it in THS 6 whenever that comes.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 11

That is exactly how it plays out... except when it doesn't.

"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."

This assumes no one would create the same quality or better mods for profit...or for free.

"Because why should they work for free for others to make a profit?"

If they explicitly state that this is not allowed then "others" would be breaking the law by utilizing their IP.

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

Someone will definitely say that.

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

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory by Garrett Hardin, which states that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource. The term is taken from the title of an article written by Hardin in 1968, which is in turn based upon an essay by a Victorian economist on the effects of unregulated grazing on common land.

"Commons" in this sense has come to mean such resources as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, the office refrigerator, energy or any other shared resource which is not formally regulated; not common land in its agricultural sense.

The only way this would apply is that free mods are somehow a common resource. As far as I know they are not.

"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."

Terrible mods will sell terribly but then again are we worried that a plethora of terrible mods will be behind a paywall? Well made quality mods will sell well for higher prices and the mod makers will make money, empirically one mod made several thousand dollars in a few days.


"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)"

And through this competition the best mods would persist and the best modders be rewarded to make even bigger and better mods.

"It's a zero-sum game."

Not in the traditional sense. People tend to spend a set percentage of their disposable income on entertainment so technically all entertainment expenses on the individual level would be a "zero-sum game" over the short time horizon. Over the long horizon elasticity of demand can change on an individual and aggregate level. People could chose to spend more on entertainment or chose to spend a higher portion of their entertainment budget on mods.

"Most gamers simply cannot afford to pay $1.99 for all 100+ mods they are using."

The market would almost certainly reward a fewer number of more comprehensive higher quality mods. You wouldn’t have 40,000 plus smaller mods of questionable quality selling well but many fewer larger well-made mods. You wouldn’t have any reason to buy 100+ mods. You would only need to install a few percent that would do the same thing better. If you look at the nexus today there are only a few hundred mods that get the most downloads even now.

"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."

Most mods already sit on this site and get rarely downloaded. Lower quality mods would either not sell or be made available for free. Free is still an option. Only truly high quality mods would sell.

"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."

I would rather have a fewer number of large comprehensive high quality mods made by the best mod makers than literally thousands of small nice mods made by people with limited time and energy to devote to mod making. If you look at the nexus many are made to be compatible and some are even being combined already.

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

Mod authors that do if for money and can’t make enough would stop. Mod authors that currently can’t mod because they can’t afford it would start. Mod authors that do it for other reasons would be free to continue.

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

Except for the instance of when they became huge successes instead. I would like to point out that since only 8% of users have ever used a mod. Using a mod is a total b&@*$ in terms of time spent learning the ins and outs of setting up LOOT, embedding Wyre Bash, TESEDIT, reading through literally thousands of mods, checking compatability, downloading patches, installing a few at a time to test, Much of this modding community seems to think Skyrim's success is somehow due to mods. It is not. The brutal reality is that Skyrim doesn't need you as much as you need Skyrim. The other 92% of users would probably thank you for the opportunity to be part of the community.

Vesuvius1745
Since I explicitly stated what I agree with, and I explicitly stated what I disagree with, and why I disagree with you, I'm unsure why there is any confusion. I don't feel wronged. I'm not mad... are you?

[bullpcp]

Thanks to all the mod makers and the mod users for creating such incredible community. The creative output is truly amazing. I for one will endorse, comment, donate and generally show my support and appreciation for the modders... when I get a chance to play the game. Much love and respect to the community. Peace.

[Simplely]

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, #24867264, #24867654, #24868944, #24869089 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.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: 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.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Ves your above points about pay-for slowly killing mods for a game eco my own concerns . As I stated in principal I'm ok with pay-for that doesn't mean I'm 100% in favour or 100% sure it can work. I don't see it returning for skyrim but its possible we will see it in THS 6 whenever that comes.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 11

That is exactly how it plays out... except when it doesn't.

"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."

This assumes no one would create the same quality or better mods for profit...or for free.

"Because why should they work for free for others to make a profit?"

If they explicitly state that this is not allowed then "others" would be breaking the law by utilizing their IP.

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

Someone will definitely say that.

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

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory by Garrett Hardin, which states that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource. The term is taken from the title of an article written by Hardin in 1968, which is in turn based upon an essay by a Victorian economist on the effects of unregulated grazing on common land.

"Commons" in this sense has come to mean such resources as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, the office refrigerator, energy or any other shared resource which is not formally regulated; not common land in its agricultural sense.

The only way this would apply is that free mods are somehow a common resource. As far as I know they are not.

"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."

Terrible mods will sell terribly but then again are we worried that a plethora of terrible mods will be behind a paywall? Well made quality mods will sell well for higher prices and the mod makers will make money, empirically one mod made several thousand dollars in a few days.


"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)"

And through this competition the best mods would persist and the best modders be rewarded to make even bigger and better mods.

"It's a zero-sum game."

Not in the traditional sense. People tend to spend a set percentage of their disposable income on entertainment so technically all entertainment expenses on the individual level would be a "zero-sum game" over the short time horizon. Over the long horizon elasticity of demand can change on an individual and aggregate level. People could chose to spend more on entertainment or chose to spend a higher portion of their entertainment budget on mods.

"Most gamers simply cannot afford to pay $1.99 for all 100+ mods they are using."

The market would almost certainly reward a fewer number of more comprehensive higher quality mods. You wouldn’t have 40,000 plus smaller mods of questionable quality selling well but many fewer larger well-made mods. You wouldn’t have any reason to buy 100+ mods. You would only need to install a few percent that would do the same thing better. If you look at the nexus today there are only a few hundred mods that get the most downloads even now.

"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."

Most mods already sit on this site and get rarely downloaded. Lower quality mods would either not sell or be made available for free. Free is still an option. Only truly high quality mods would sell.

"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."

I would rather have a fewer number of large comprehensive high quality mods made by the best mod makers than literally thousands of small nice mods made by people with limited time and energy to devote to mod making. If you look at the nexus many are made to be compatible and some are even being combined already.

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

Mod authors that do if for money and can’t make enough would stop. Mod authors that currently can’t mod because they can’t afford it would start. Mod authors that do it for other reasons would be free to continue.

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

Except for the instance of when they became huge successes instead. I would like to point out that since only 8% of users have ever used a mod. Using a mod is a total b&@*$ in terms of time spent learning the ins and outs of setting up LOOT, embedding Wyre Bash, TESEDIT, reading through literally thousands of mods, checking compatability, downloading patches, installing a few at a time to test, Much of this modding community seems to think Skyrim's success is somehow due to mods. It is not. The brutal reality is that Skyrim doesn't need you as much as you need Skyrim. The other 92% of users would probably thank you for the opportunity to be part of the community.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745
Since I explicitly stated what I agree with, and I explicitly stated what I disagree with, and why I disagree with you, I'm unsure why there is any confusion. I don't feel wronged. I'm not mad... are you?

right on deadash

[wulfharth]

In response to post #24859024. #24859239, #24860709, #24861914 are all replies on the same post.

wulfharth wrote: Sometimes an idea once presented will persist as a part of the public consciousness forever. Finding out that Bethesda is in favor of individuals being paid to create content that adds life to their games will cause a massive change in the entire modding community.

Expect to see professional DLC creating studios in the future. Modders will soon have an opportunity to mod full-time and make a living from it. I wouldn't be surprised if these studios became sub-studios of Bethesda someday.

The downside is that the most professional and biggest mods will be paid mods (much like now). The upside is that there will be more DLC quality mods available and probably with additional support from Bethesda in terms of rigging files and code.

I have never failed to buy a mod for a TES game since Morrowind, and I've considered them all money well spent. I really look forward to the prospect of more of that type of content becoming available. The sooner this site adapts to this possibility, the better it will be able to stay a foundation piece of this community.

pokenar wrote: I was not actually one of those against paid mods, I just didn't like the execution. there were many many many issues with how bethesda and valve did it.

wulfharth wrote: Those percentages are pretty standard for a situation like that. If you read the Beth Blog, they will explain it. Valve was even going to share some of their cut with the Nexus.

Also, I think it's sad that people attacked modders who were trying to exercise an opportunity that was given to them. Nothing was taken away, an option was added for the modder.

It's old news now, but it's a sad day for artistic freedom. People think they don't have to pay for art because the artist enjoys their work. That mentality needs to change if modding is to thrive and reach it's true potential.

welikedustybetter wrote: Modding is different than art in many ways. There are many aspects to consider. Mods can be buggy or incompatible with each other or with your game or system. This is exacerbated by the bugs or stability issues native to the game. Then there's the fact that many mods are dependent upon other mods. Then there are modders resources and frameworks. Would there then also be royalty fees? A paid mods system would be a legal nightmare.

To sum up my opinion on this, I think modders provide a very valuable service to these games, and they should get paid for it. However, I think a donation system is much more suited for this. Someone else made a good long post on it in a previous Nexus article, so I won't bother, but I think the current system could use some tweaks that remind users that they can donate to the mod author, and perhaps reward those that do.

Donation systems do not work. People mostly don't bother to endorse even to the best of the best mods. Do you really think they will take the time to give out of the kindness of their hearts? Historically on this site, no. They don't understand how long it takes to add a simple model or build a dungeon.

Modding requires creativity and is undeniably Art. That's why game development is taught at art academies in America.

If everyone gave one penny to each mod they use right now, Some people could quite their jobs and mod full time. That means more mods, more updates, and more compatibility patches. Mod theft and asset theft is easy to control with the reporting system we already have in place. Creators of buggy mods will not be endorsed and will not receive repeat business.