Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[Ghatto]

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, #24869854, #24874009, #24874879 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 (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.

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 wrote: I don't have time to respond to all of that at the moment.

I will say I am not aware of any situation where the pay-for mod paradigm has been successful. DOTA? If what you say is correct, then perhaps all the mod authors who want to be paid could start modding for DOTA instead. Problem solved.

thefinn wrote: I think the main difference is the different "culture" between modders getting paid for something and a corporation getting paid for something.

There's a pretty big culture difference there.

As I said in my above thread, my first thought was to start modding again when I heard about "paid mods" so it goes to show that it can instil the productivity mood in someone to consider they might get something out of it.

However, this particular system they put forward is too awful once you look into it..

Not only that but DoTA mods et. al. are not really 'mods' they're 'skins'. Yes for decades now they're practically synonymous, but the major difference is that a 'mod' tends to require the author to turn the game inside out in order to change gameplay and fit add things that didn't exist before, something that game developers either facilitate nicely, or tolerate begrudgingly. Skins though, are mostly innocuous; nothing but a palette swap or some new models overriding others, and in DoTA's case: fully compatible by the way of developers full facilitation.

Even though I'm fully against stuff like DoTAs implementation, I'll admit that it should have a low rate of customer dissatisfaction thanks to the above. Skyrim however, would've tumbled and burned in ways well beyond the tribulations of this recent debacle.

[Ghatto]

In response to post #24873139. #24874159, #24874314, #24874474, #24874519, #24874634, #24874639, #24874729, #24874774, #24874924, #24874984, #24875019, #24875044, #24875074, #24875124, #24875219, #24875289, #24875334, #24875454, #24875484, #24875669, #24876774, #24876829, #24877709, #24877889, #24877969, #24878254, #24878299, #24878569, #24878604, #24878759 are all replies on the same post.

thefinn wrote: I doubt they will drop this.

They will do more research than smoking some doobies in the coffee lounge at valve and saying "You know what would be cool ?" then we'll see something similar coming up again in the future.

There's way too much money involved for this to go away.

Personally, if they'd just add a "donate" button and not try to "sell mods" that might go down better.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: With the next TES game, I could see them charging for the Creation Kit, and then setting it so you have to "share" your mods on a specific website they control, and then charging people a flat-access rate to the website.

Oh, and I can see them releasing the next TES game even more incomplete than Skyrim. Release a barebones game, make money off it, then let the modders finish your game, and make money off of that too. I bet I've just given some pencil pusher at Bethesda a 3-inch erection.

wulfharth wrote: That's called an alpha release, and that happens everyday.

Bethesda has always tried hard to keep everyone happy (except with the exclusive DLC period releases). They just wanted to give people who make mods a chance to do it for a living. Shame on them for creating jobs and stimulating the mod community. They should all kill themselves. Right? Should I make a sign protest mod about them offering opportunity?

How do I block this guy? The option isn't at the bottom of his posts.

wulfharth wrote: Ha! I found out where to do it, but I can't block you Vesuvius1745 because you've never contributed a mod, so you aren't listed as an author.

So why again do you feel you have the right to have an opinion on what actual mod contributor's are allowed to do with their mods? You aren't even one of us.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize the corporation known as Bethesda was being altruistic, and just wanted to stimulate the economy while at the same time giving amateur mod authors their Big Break. You're not only a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, you're a glass-is-half-full when it's actually empty kind of guy.

Instead of trying to make a buck off of mod authors, they should concentrate on making sure the next TES release is stable and complete. Yes, game companies are releasing their games earlier and earlier, and frankly, many gamers are sick of paying to Beta test unfinished products.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Good question, wulth. As someone who paid for Skyrim, I have the same right as the 133,000+ other people who signed the petition given to Bethesda telling them what we thought of this pay-for system.

I suspect the pencil pusher who came up with this idea is probably shaking in his boots. Wondering if he will have a job next month. Maybe he's even trolling these forums to test the waters, and not liking what he is seeing.

thefinn wrote: Well I am a pretty harsh critic of games, I think Skyrim is one of the best I've played in years.

There might've been some bugs at launch, but few are the games you'll find without them and frankly with the size of Skyrim they are to be expected.

I don't see how it was "incomplete".

wulfharth wrote: @Vesuvius-Instead of telling super successful multi-million dollar corporations with giant and loyal fan bases how to run their businesses, you should go try and make a dungeon or create and add a custom 3D model. I'm sure you'll change your tune very quickly.

You have no frame of reference for what it means or takes to be a mod author. Stop telling everyone what to do or what they should do. You aren't qualified.

thefinn wrote: The difference being that the question for you is "Can I still get free stuff?" while the question for modders is "Is this a system I find reasonable to work with?"

The only saving grace to me was the thought that perhaps I should start putting together my feminine walk mod again to be paid for, or to be the free alternative to the other mod of its' kind. It actually made me think this (for the very small mods I have done) it was in fact my first thought.

So it can indeed instill the impetus in modders to mod.

However, the drawbacks of the current idea are awful.

It leaves the door open for game companies to make mods "steam only" in the future for benefits to the bottom line for instance.

wulfharth wrote: The official paid DLC is Steam only. Why not the smaller not official but sanctioned DLC? We always have the Nexus if modders want to choose to throw up an donate button to not get pressed and give free work to the sweet and loving community.

thefinn wrote: You're missing the point.

They can make the game so that when it runs it only allows mods that steam downloaded.

And they would be...
1) In their rights to do so.
2) getting more profits by doing so and they are corporations you know?

Reaper0021 wrote: thefinn is right in that regard. IF THEY WANTED to be tyrannical about it that is.

thefinn wrote: And when have you known corporations not to be ?

DRM itself had huge backlash at the time... but here it is still.

Reaper0021 wrote: I agree with you thefinn. I'll tell you one that isn't and I defy you to say otherwise: CDProjekt Red. But in all aspects of this you're 100% right.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Wulf, your ad hominem aside, I'm not going to post my resume because it's irrelevant. Every person who bought Skyrim (they are called customers) have an absolute right to tell Bethesda what they think of their business practices. It doesn't matter if not a single one of those 133,000 people who signed the petition never wrote a mod, or has not done something YOU think "qualifies" them to giver their opinion. They still get to give it.

Of course Bethesda is under no obligation to listen to their customers. In this case they did. They probably also realized what a Hiroshima-type disaster this was, and if they were smart, fired the individual(s) responsible for this abortion of creativity.

wulfharth wrote: If Bethesda wanted to be tyrants, they probably wouldn't have out of pocketed to provide and update the creation kit. And that's just for the PC gamers mind you. That is a special gift just to us that is more valuable than any 10 mods on here. You should feel loved and have more faith in them.

wulfharth wrote: Vesuvius-You are Bethesda's customer. Not mine. I don't want your made up resume. All I know is that you haven't posted a single mod. You aren't a modder. Why are you telling us what we can do with our work?

Reaper0021 wrote: It's not about lack of love or faith. It's about common business practices. A business remains a business as long as it can "TURN A PROFIT" and when it can't no longer (ATARI, Commodore, SEGA, etc.) then it stops becoming a business and becomes a share holders nightmare. All of this is just theory talk...but in the back of my mind I remain cautious about what the future holds.

thefinn wrote: Totally agree, if I were going to have love or faith (without going to church) it'd be in the Nexus, not some new system Valve has talked Bethesda into.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I, nor anybody else, is telling mod authors what they can or cannot do with their "work". As Bethesda's customers, we explained to them we did not want a pay-for paradigm for mods. We gave our opinion, which as customers we have every right to give. They didn't have to listen to their customers, but they did. Since Bethesda owns the Intellectual property rights to Skyrim, and mod authors sign their EULA accepting their contract, it is Bethesda who gets to tell mod authors what they can or cannot do with their derivative creations. If a mod author is upset by that, then they should take it up with Bethesda. Or mod for a game that allows paid-for mods. Whining about it here, or getting upset with the people who bought Skyrim and gave their opinion, is not going to be fruitful.

Reaper0021 wrote: And to continue on this point by Vesuvius1745....when I give my $$$$ for anything in this world be it new tires, PC parts, cable T.V./internet, books, food, games, music, etc. I HAVE the right as a paying customer to offer my critique or displeasure or ANYTHING with what I paid for if it doesn't meet my expectations as a customer. I don't have to be a tire manufacturer to offer my opinion that I like Firestone better than the other brands. You make no sense man in your argument. You act as if we are indebted to Bethesda and I can assure you it's the other way around. Kudos given to Vesuvius1745.

crashpilot wrote: @Wulfharth,

Since there is not that much of your work you have to worry about, I would say let us our opinion and we let you yours.

Pauliwhop wrote: You don't have to be a doctor to sue for Malpractice. Try again.

treota wrote: "All I know is that you haven't posted a single mod, so you are not a modder" - This is basically the same as telling a carpenter they aren't valid because they have never carved mahogany, who is to say that he has never contributed anything to any modding scene for any game ever created or even created content that he didn't feel like uploading.

More close to home telling a critic that their opinion is worthless because they have never done what they critique (which is pretty common).

I'm 99% sure that there are plenty of food critics for example that have never been professional chefs.

thefinn wrote: The fact that your chair is made of wood, doesn't make you a carpenter.

sunshinenbrick wrote: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing."

Nicholas Butler

treota wrote: The carpenter idea was based on the person having modded something at some point in their life which is probably (not always of course) the case if said person has a keen interest in modding.

Being a creator does not make your opinion more or less valid than your consumer. :)

oldnotweak wrote: we need a block function so every mod author can block Vesuvius and people like him

Vesuvius1745 wrote: @Oldnottweak It would be easier to just take all your mods off the Nexus, otherwise you will have to block about aprox. 133,000+ people (the number of people who signed that petition given to Bethesda).

And since we are blocking people who think differently than us, then maybe the "Forever Free" modders will block YOU from all of their mods, and the programmers of ENB, SKSE, Wyre Bash, and every other utility you've benefited from can block your IP so you can no longer download their stuff.

It can be a giant block festival. Wouldn't that be fun?

Ghatto wrote: Oh yeah that wouldn't go horribly wrong now would it?

thefinn wrote: Being a creator doesn't make my opinion more valid than my consumer regarding the mod sure.

However, being the creator makes my opinion more valid than my consumer regarding the system by which I make (or not) money off my creation.

Otherwise we'd be looking at a society where we had no money at all.
Noone would ever want to pay for anything and that'd be it.

So obviously the people at say Mattel decide that they are gonna charge money for their s#*!.

Your opinion on that matter ... doesn't matter. Where there's money to be made - corporations go.

At this point paid modding will be coming in. There's little doubt of that.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-05-01-sooner-or-later-paid-for-mods-are-coming

The only question remains "how?" and "when?"

The system itself is important, and if people want to enter a discussion saying "there shouldn't be a system" they are just gonna be ignored by I'd have to say - the large majority of modders and likely valve too. Expect it.

From Gabe's comments he's aware of the fact they screwed up by using Skyrim as the entry point for this change in the platform on steam. This probably means there will be years before we see a Bethesda game take on paid modding. (Fallout IV or TES VI most likely).

The issue remains will it start to encroach on the nexus, will it stifle modding ?!

Will the word "modding" merely change meaning - like so many other things do over time (and usually not for the better).

For instance what happens if the Unofficial Skyrim Patch goes paid ?

HEAPS of other modders have to change their mods (Through TESVEdit) to encompass changes in USP each time Arthmoor updates it. Otherwise their mods overwrite his changes.

Do they have to pay for USP ? That seems like a fairly central issue too - dependencies.

There are still a lot of question for Bethesda imo.
I'm not sure if I'm for or against the whole idea.

I disagree. I don't see why my opinion shouldn't retain value simply because it criticises the system as a whole and makes clear my desire to go without it. I understand how it positions myself in the argument as 'either/or' rather than compromise but that's that. Yes it's a see-saw that goes both ways; government policy has been that decisive for generations and we could all benefit on compromise there, but unfortunately that still doesn't work because it then creates a new 'either/or' which is instead a 'enjoy compromise/suffer compromise'.

[Tyerial12]

In response to post #24873139. #24874159, #24874314, #24874474, #24874519, #24874634, #24874639, #24874729, #24874774, #24874924, #24874984, #24875019, #24875044, #24875074, #24875124, #24875219, #24875289, #24875334, #24875454, #24875484, #24875669, #24876774, #24876829, #24877709, #24877889, #24877969, #24878254, #24878299, #24878569, #24878604, #24878759, #24879069 are all replies on the same post.

thefinn wrote: I doubt they will drop this.

They will do more research than smoking some doobies in the coffee lounge at valve and saying "You know what would be cool ?" then we'll see something similar coming up again in the future.

There's way too much money involved for this to go away.

Personally, if they'd just add a "donate" button and not try to "sell mods" that might go down better.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: With the next TES game, I could see them charging for the Creation Kit, and then setting it so you have to "share" your mods on a specific website they control, and then charging people a flat-access rate to the website.

Oh, and I can see them releasing the next TES game even more incomplete than Skyrim. Release a barebones game, make money off it, then let the modders finish your game, and make money off of that too. I bet I've just given some pencil pusher at Bethesda a 3-inch erection.

wulfharth wrote: That's called an alpha release, and that happens everyday.

Bethesda has always tried hard to keep everyone happy (except with the exclusive DLC period releases). They just wanted to give people who make mods a chance to do it for a living. Shame on them for creating jobs and stimulating the mod community. They should all kill themselves. Right? Should I make a sign protest mod about them offering opportunity?

How do I block this guy? The option isn't at the bottom of his posts.

wulfharth wrote: Ha! I found out where to do it, but I can't block you Vesuvius1745 because you've never contributed a mod, so you aren't listed as an author.

So why again do you feel you have the right to have an opinion on what actual mod contributor's are allowed to do with their mods? You aren't even one of us.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize the corporation known as Bethesda was being altruistic, and just wanted to stimulate the economy while at the same time giving amateur mod authors their Big Break. You're not only a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, you're a glass-is-half-full when it's actually empty kind of guy.

Instead of trying to make a buck off of mod authors, they should concentrate on making sure the next TES release is stable and complete. Yes, game companies are releasing their games earlier and earlier, and frankly, many gamers are sick of paying to Beta test unfinished products.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Good question, wulth. As someone who paid for Skyrim, I have the same right as the 133,000+ other people who signed the petition given to Bethesda telling them what we thought of this pay-for system.

I suspect the pencil pusher who came up with this idea is probably shaking in his boots. Wondering if he will have a job next month. Maybe he's even trolling these forums to test the waters, and not liking what he is seeing.

thefinn wrote: Well I am a pretty harsh critic of games, I think Skyrim is one of the best I've played in years.

There might've been some bugs at launch, but few are the games you'll find without them and frankly with the size of Skyrim they are to be expected.

I don't see how it was "incomplete".

wulfharth wrote: @Vesuvius-Instead of telling super successful multi-million dollar corporations with giant and loyal fan bases how to run their businesses, you should go try and make a dungeon or create and add a custom 3D model. I'm sure you'll change your tune very quickly.

You have no frame of reference for what it means or takes to be a mod author. Stop telling everyone what to do or what they should do. You aren't qualified.

thefinn wrote: The difference being that the question for you is "Can I still get free stuff?" while the question for modders is "Is this a system I find reasonable to work with?"

The only saving grace to me was the thought that perhaps I should start putting together my feminine walk mod again to be paid for, or to be the free alternative to the other mod of its' kind. It actually made me think this (for the very small mods I have done) it was in fact my first thought.

So it can indeed instill the impetus in modders to mod.

However, the drawbacks of the current idea are awful.

It leaves the door open for game companies to make mods "steam only" in the future for benefits to the bottom line for instance.

wulfharth wrote: The official paid DLC is Steam only. Why not the smaller not official but sanctioned DLC? We always have the Nexus if modders want to choose to throw up an donate button to not get pressed and give free work to the sweet and loving community.

thefinn wrote: You're missing the point.

They can make the game so that when it runs it only allows mods that steam downloaded.

And they would be...
1) In their rights to do so.
2) getting more profits by doing so and they are corporations you know?

Reaper0021 wrote: thefinn is right in that regard. IF THEY WANTED to be tyrannical about it that is.

thefinn wrote: And when have you known corporations not to be ?

DRM itself had huge backlash at the time... but here it is still.

Reaper0021 wrote: I agree with you thefinn. I'll tell you one that isn't and I defy you to say otherwise: CDProjekt Red. But in all aspects of this you're 100% right.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Wulf, your ad hominem aside, I'm not going to post my resume because it's irrelevant. Every person who bought Skyrim (they are called customers) have an absolute right to tell Bethesda what they think of their business practices. It doesn't matter if not a single one of those 133,000 people who signed the petition never wrote a mod, or has not done something YOU think "qualifies" them to giver their opinion. They still get to give it.

Of course Bethesda is under no obligation to listen to their customers. In this case they did. They probably also realized what a Hiroshima-type disaster this was, and if they were smart, fired the individual(s) responsible for this abortion of creativity.

wulfharth wrote: If Bethesda wanted to be tyrants, they probably wouldn't have out of pocketed to provide and update the creation kit. And that's just for the PC gamers mind you. That is a special gift just to us that is more valuable than any 10 mods on here. You should feel loved and have more faith in them.

wulfharth wrote: Vesuvius-You are Bethesda's customer. Not mine. I don't want your made up resume. All I know is that you haven't posted a single mod. You aren't a modder. Why are you telling us what we can do with our work?

Reaper0021 wrote: It's not about lack of love or faith. It's about common business practices. A business remains a business as long as it can "TURN A PROFIT" and when it can't no longer (ATARI, Commodore, SEGA, etc.) then it stops becoming a business and becomes a share holders nightmare. All of this is just theory talk...but in the back of my mind I remain cautious about what the future holds.

thefinn wrote: Totally agree, if I were going to have love or faith (without going to church) it'd be in the Nexus, not some new system Valve has talked Bethesda into.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I, nor anybody else, is telling mod authors what they can or cannot do with their "work". As Bethesda's customers, we explained to them we did not want a pay-for paradigm for mods. We gave our opinion, which as customers we have every right to give. They didn't have to listen to their customers, but they did. Since Bethesda owns the Intellectual property rights to Skyrim, and mod authors sign their EULA accepting their contract, it is Bethesda who gets to tell mod authors what they can or cannot do with their derivative creations. If a mod author is upset by that, then they should take it up with Bethesda. Or mod for a game that allows paid-for mods. Whining about it here, or getting upset with the people who bought Skyrim and gave their opinion, is not going to be fruitful.

Reaper0021 wrote: And to continue on this point by Vesuvius1745....when I give my $$$$ for anything in this world be it new tires, PC parts, cable T.V./internet, books, food, games, music, etc. I HAVE the right as a paying customer to offer my critique or displeasure or ANYTHING with what I paid for if it doesn't meet my expectations as a customer. I don't have to be a tire manufacturer to offer my opinion that I like Firestone better than the other brands. You make no sense man in your argument. You act as if we are indebted to Bethesda and I can assure you it's the other way around. Kudos given to Vesuvius1745.

crashpilot wrote: @Wulfharth,

Since there is not that much of your work you have to worry about, I would say let us our opinion and we let you yours.

Pauliwhop wrote: You don't have to be a doctor to sue for Malpractice. Try again.

treota wrote: "All I know is that you haven't posted a single mod, so you are not a modder" - This is basically the same as telling a carpenter they aren't valid because they have never carved mahogany, who is to say that he has never contributed anything to any modding scene for any game ever created or even created content that he didn't feel like uploading.

More close to home telling a critic that their opinion is worthless because they have never done what they critique (which is pretty common).

I'm 99% sure that there are plenty of food critics for example that have never been professional chefs.

thefinn wrote: The fact that your chair is made of wood, doesn't make you a carpenter.

sunshinenbrick wrote: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing."

Nicholas Butler

treota wrote: The carpenter idea was based on the person having modded something at some point in their life which is probably (not always of course) the case if said person has a keen interest in modding.

Being a creator does not make your opinion more or less valid than your consumer. :)

oldnotweak wrote: we need a block function so every mod author can block Vesuvius and people like him

Vesuvius1745 wrote: @Oldnottweak It would be easier to just take all your mods off the Nexus, otherwise you will have to block about aprox. 133,000+ people (the number of people who signed that petition given to Bethesda).

And since we are blocking people who think differently than us, then maybe the "Forever Free" modders will block YOU from all of their mods, and the programmers of ENB, SKSE, Wyre Bash, and every other utility you've benefited from can block your IP so you can no longer download their stuff.

It can be a giant block festival. Wouldn't that be fun?

Ghatto wrote: Oh yeah that wouldn't go horribly wrong now would it?

thefinn wrote: Being a creator doesn't make my opinion more valid than my consumer regarding the mod sure.

However, being the creator makes my opinion more valid than my consumer regarding the system by which I make (or not) money off my creation.

Otherwise we'd be looking at a society where we had no money at all.
Noone would ever want to pay for anything and that'd be it.

So obviously the people at say Mattel decide that they are gonna charge money for their s#*!.

Your opinion on that matter ... doesn't matter. Where there's money to be made - corporations go.

At this point paid modding will be coming in. There's little doubt of that.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-05-01-sooner-or-later-paid-for-mods-are-coming

The only question remains "how?" and "when?"

The system itself is important, and if people want to enter a discussion saying "there shouldn't be a system" they are just gonna be ignored by I'd have to say - the large majority of modders and likely valve too. Expect it.

From Gabe's comments he's aware of the fact they screwed up by using Skyrim as the entry point for this change in the platform on steam. This probably means there will be years before we see a Bethesda game take on paid modding. (Fallout IV or TES VI most likely).

The issue remains will it start to encroach on the nexus, will it stifle modding ?!

Will the word "modding" merely change meaning - like so many other things do over time (and usually not for the better).

For instance what happens if the Unofficial Skyrim Patch goes paid ?

HEAPS of other modders have to change their mods (Through TESVEdit) to encompass changes in USP each time Arthmoor updates it. Otherwise their mods overwrite his changes.

Do they have to pay for USP ? That seems like a fairly central issue too - dependencies.

There are still a lot of question for Bethesda imo.
I'm not sure if I'm for or against the whole idea.

Ghatto wrote: I disagree. I don't see why my opinion shouldn't retain value simply because it criticises the system as a whole and makes clear my desire to go without it. I understand how it positions myself in the argument as 'either/or' rather than compromise but that's that. Yes it's a see-saw that goes both ways; government policy has been that decisive for generations and we could all benefit on compromise there, but unfortunately that still doesn't work because it then creates a new 'either/or' which is instead a 'enjoy compromise/suffer compromise'.

problem is we know its comming but mod authors better be aware pirates will come as well.

Someone will buy your mod then release it on free sites anonomsly and bam free mod Edited May 2, 2015 by Tyerial12

[WightMage]

In response to post #24873139. #24874159, #24874314, #24874474, #24874519, #24874634, #24874639, #24874729, #24874774, #24874924, #24874984, #24875019, #24875044, #24875074, #24875124, #24875219, #24875289, #24875334, #24875454, #24875484, #24875669, #24876774, #24876829, #24877709, #24877889, #24877969, #24878254, #24878299, #24878569, #24878604, #24878759, #24879069, #24879579 are all replies on the same post.

thefinn wrote: I doubt they will drop this.

They will do more research than smoking some doobies in the coffee lounge at valve and saying "You know what would be cool ?" then we'll see something similar coming up again in the future.

There's way too much money involved for this to go away.

Personally, if they'd just add a "donate" button and not try to "sell mods" that might go down better.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: With the next TES game, I could see them charging for the Creation Kit, and then setting it so you have to "share" your mods on a specific website they control, and then charging people a flat-access rate to the website.

Oh, and I can see them releasing the next TES game even more incomplete than Skyrim. Release a barebones game, make money off it, then let the modders finish your game, and make money off of that too. I bet I've just given some pencil pusher at Bethesda a 3-inch erection.

wulfharth wrote: That's called an alpha release, and that happens everyday.

Bethesda has always tried hard to keep everyone happy (except with the exclusive DLC period releases). They just wanted to give people who make mods a chance to do it for a living. Shame on them for creating jobs and stimulating the mod community. They should all kill themselves. Right? Should I make a sign protest mod about them offering opportunity?

How do I block this guy? The option isn't at the bottom of his posts.

wulfharth wrote: Ha! I found out where to do it, but I can't block you Vesuvius1745 because you've never contributed a mod, so you aren't listed as an author.

So why again do you feel you have the right to have an opinion on what actual mod contributor's are allowed to do with their mods? You aren't even one of us.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize the corporation known as Bethesda was being altruistic, and just wanted to stimulate the economy while at the same time giving amateur mod authors their Big Break. You're not only a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, you're a glass-is-half-full when it's actually empty kind of guy.

Instead of trying to make a buck off of mod authors, they should concentrate on making sure the next TES release is stable and complete. Yes, game companies are releasing their games earlier and earlier, and frankly, many gamers are sick of paying to Beta test unfinished products.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Good question, wulth. As someone who paid for Skyrim, I have the same right as the 133,000+ other people who signed the petition given to Bethesda telling them what we thought of this pay-for system.

I suspect the pencil pusher who came up with this idea is probably shaking in his boots. Wondering if he will have a job next month. Maybe he's even trolling these forums to test the waters, and not liking what he is seeing.

thefinn wrote: Well I am a pretty harsh critic of games, I think Skyrim is one of the best I've played in years.

There might've been some bugs at launch, but few are the games you'll find without them and frankly with the size of Skyrim they are to be expected.

I don't see how it was "incomplete".

wulfharth wrote: @Vesuvius-Instead of telling super successful multi-million dollar corporations with giant and loyal fan bases how to run their businesses, you should go try and make a dungeon or create and add a custom 3D model. I'm sure you'll change your tune very quickly.

You have no frame of reference for what it means or takes to be a mod author. Stop telling everyone what to do or what they should do. You aren't qualified.

thefinn wrote: The difference being that the question for you is "Can I still get free stuff?" while the question for modders is "Is this a system I find reasonable to work with?"

The only saving grace to me was the thought that perhaps I should start putting together my feminine walk mod again to be paid for, or to be the free alternative to the other mod of its' kind. It actually made me think this (for the very small mods I have done) it was in fact my first thought.

So it can indeed instill the impetus in modders to mod.

However, the drawbacks of the current idea are awful.

It leaves the door open for game companies to make mods "steam only" in the future for benefits to the bottom line for instance.

wulfharth wrote: The official paid DLC is Steam only. Why not the smaller not official but sanctioned DLC? We always have the Nexus if modders want to choose to throw up an donate button to not get pressed and give free work to the sweet and loving community.

thefinn wrote: You're missing the point.

They can make the game so that when it runs it only allows mods that steam downloaded.

And they would be...
1) In their rights to do so.
2) getting more profits by doing so and they are corporations you know?

Reaper0021 wrote: thefinn is right in that regard. IF THEY WANTED to be tyrannical about it that is.

thefinn wrote: And when have you known corporations not to be ?

DRM itself had huge backlash at the time... but here it is still.

Reaper0021 wrote: I agree with you thefinn. I'll tell you one that isn't and I defy you to say otherwise: CDProjekt Red. But in all aspects of this you're 100% right.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Wulf, your ad hominem aside, I'm not going to post my resume because it's irrelevant. Every person who bought Skyrim (they are called customers) have an absolute right to tell Bethesda what they think of their business practices. It doesn't matter if not a single one of those 133,000 people who signed the petition never wrote a mod, or has not done something YOU think "qualifies" them to giver their opinion. They still get to give it.

Of course Bethesda is under no obligation to listen to their customers. In this case they did. They probably also realized what a Hiroshima-type disaster this was, and if they were smart, fired the individual(s) responsible for this abortion of creativity.

wulfharth wrote: If Bethesda wanted to be tyrants, they probably wouldn't have out of pocketed to provide and update the creation kit. And that's just for the PC gamers mind you. That is a special gift just to us that is more valuable than any 10 mods on here. You should feel loved and have more faith in them.

wulfharth wrote: Vesuvius-You are Bethesda's customer. Not mine. I don't want your made up resume. All I know is that you haven't posted a single mod. You aren't a modder. Why are you telling us what we can do with our work?

Reaper0021 wrote: It's not about lack of love or faith. It's about common business practices. A business remains a business as long as it can "TURN A PROFIT" and when it can't no longer (ATARI, Commodore, SEGA, etc.) then it stops becoming a business and becomes a share holders nightmare. All of this is just theory talk...but in the back of my mind I remain cautious about what the future holds.

thefinn wrote: Totally agree, if I were going to have love or faith (without going to church) it'd be in the Nexus, not some new system Valve has talked Bethesda into.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I, nor anybody else, is telling mod authors what they can or cannot do with their "work". As Bethesda's customers, we explained to them we did not want a pay-for paradigm for mods. We gave our opinion, which as customers we have every right to give. They didn't have to listen to their customers, but they did. Since Bethesda owns the Intellectual property rights to Skyrim, and mod authors sign their EULA accepting their contract, it is Bethesda who gets to tell mod authors what they can or cannot do with their derivative creations. If a mod author is upset by that, then they should take it up with Bethesda. Or mod for a game that allows paid-for mods. Whining about it here, or getting upset with the people who bought Skyrim and gave their opinion, is not going to be fruitful.

Reaper0021 wrote: And to continue on this point by Vesuvius1745....when I give my $$$$ for anything in this world be it new tires, PC parts, cable T.V./internet, books, food, games, music, etc. I HAVE the right as a paying customer to offer my critique or displeasure or ANYTHING with what I paid for if it doesn't meet my expectations as a customer. I don't have to be a tire manufacturer to offer my opinion that I like Firestone better than the other brands. You make no sense man in your argument. You act as if we are indebted to Bethesda and I can assure you it's the other way around. Kudos given to Vesuvius1745.

crashpilot wrote: @Wulfharth,

Since there is not that much of your work you have to worry about, I would say let us our opinion and we let you yours.

Pauliwhop wrote: You don't have to be a doctor to sue for Malpractice. Try again.

treota wrote: "All I know is that you haven't posted a single mod, so you are not a modder" - This is basically the same as telling a carpenter they aren't valid because they have never carved mahogany, who is to say that he has never contributed anything to any modding scene for any game ever created or even created content that he didn't feel like uploading.

More close to home telling a critic that their opinion is worthless because they have never done what they critique (which is pretty common).

I'm 99% sure that there are plenty of food critics for example that have never been professional chefs.

thefinn wrote: The fact that your chair is made of wood, doesn't make you a carpenter.

sunshinenbrick wrote: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing."

Nicholas Butler

treota wrote: The carpenter idea was based on the person having modded something at some point in their life which is probably (not always of course) the case if said person has a keen interest in modding.

Being a creator does not make your opinion more or less valid than your consumer. :)

oldnotweak wrote: we need a block function so every mod author can block Vesuvius and people like him

Vesuvius1745 wrote: @Oldnottweak It would be easier to just take all your mods off the Nexus, otherwise you will have to block about aprox. 133,000+ people (the number of people who signed that petition given to Bethesda).

And since we are blocking people who think differently than us, then maybe the "Forever Free" modders will block YOU from all of their mods, and the programmers of ENB, SKSE, Wyre Bash, and every other utility you've benefited from can block your IP so you can no longer download their stuff.

It can be a giant block festival. Wouldn't that be fun?

Ghatto wrote: Oh yeah that wouldn't go horribly wrong now would it?

thefinn wrote: Being a creator doesn't make my opinion more valid than my consumer regarding the mod sure.

However, being the creator makes my opinion more valid than my consumer regarding the system by which I make (or not) money off my creation.

Otherwise we'd be looking at a society where we had no money at all.
Noone would ever want to pay for anything and that'd be it.

So obviously the people at say Mattel decide that they are gonna charge money for their s#*!.

Your opinion on that matter ... doesn't matter. Where there's money to be made - corporations go.

At this point paid modding will be coming in. There's little doubt of that.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-05-01-sooner-or-later-paid-for-mods-are-coming

The only question remains "how?" and "when?"

The system itself is important, and if people want to enter a discussion saying "there shouldn't be a system" they are just gonna be ignored by I'd have to say - the large majority of modders and likely valve too. Expect it.

From Gabe's comments he's aware of the fact they screwed up by using Skyrim as the entry point for this change in the platform on steam. This probably means there will be years before we see a Bethesda game take on paid modding. (Fallout IV or TES VI most likely).

The issue remains will it start to encroach on the nexus, will it stifle modding ?!

Will the word "modding" merely change meaning - like so many other things do over time (and usually not for the better).

For instance what happens if the Unofficial Skyrim Patch goes paid ?

HEAPS of other modders have to change their mods (Through TESVEdit) to encompass changes in USP each time Arthmoor updates it. Otherwise their mods overwrite his changes.

Do they have to pay for USP ? That seems like a fairly central issue too - dependencies.

There are still a lot of question for Bethesda imo.
I'm not sure if I'm for or against the whole idea.

Ghatto wrote: I disagree. I don't see why my opinion shouldn't retain value simply because it criticises the system as a whole and makes clear my desire to go without it. I understand how it positions myself in the argument as 'either/or' rather than compromise but that's that. Yes it's a see-saw that goes both ways; government policy has been that decisive for generations and we could all benefit on compromise there, but unfortunately that still doesn't work because it then creates a new 'either/or' which is instead a 'enjoy compromise/suffer compromise'.

Tyerial12 wrote: problem is we know its comming but mod authors better be aware pirates will come as well.

Someone will buy your mod then release it on free sites anonomsly and bam free mod

Have we really come to this?

[WightMage]

In response to post #24878574. #24878624 is also a reply to the same post.

DCWillis wrote: I would like to vent for a moment if I may. Chesko with his Arissa mod has upset me a little. First he abandoned the mod and let someone else take care of it. Then he comes back about a month before the paid mod announcement, but he had prior knowledge. He automatically had big plans because he knew it would go paid and jumped on the wagon. But once everyone spoke up and he could not make money he pulled his mods and went back into hiding.

This is the one and only time I wish the game had co op because I would like to take him to the throat of the world and demonstrate a shout I learned.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I feel ya, but it is his right to take his marbles and run home.

...and to be fair, he was one of the few modders who apologized for his mistakes, and the way he reacted.

[Tommerbob]

Earlier today I listened to the entire 2 hour discussion between you, TB and Brumbek (while playing Skyrim of course :P).

 

I am glad I did. It gave me new insight into this whole fiasco from the perspective of people who are far more knowledgeable about it than I, so I just want to say thanks for your insight and thanks for all your hard work on this site.

[Arcadiast]

I knew this was coming. The "Lottery" and "a sucker born every minute" Mentalities combined inevitably lead to monetizing everything.

 

I dont blame a Modder who has created a Mod with Millions of Downloads thinking "I could get rich with this". I dont even blame any "Businessman" thinking "there is money to be made with this". These are logical conclusions. I would have, however, blamed anyone who loves mods and modding if they had not defended their hobby. It seems they were smart enough to do so and for that I am very VERY Proud of the modding community.

 

I dont mind the "idea" of monetizing User created Content but dont call it Modding. Call it "UDLC" (User created DLC) or "UCC" (User Created Content) or something else. Just draw a line. Make it clear to people what is what. By calling it Modding you are "raping" the good reputation of a Hobby People got used to. Its the same thing a Drug Dealer does, the first sample is free and once he got you hooked he starts asking more and more.

 

I made some small mods long ago. Nothing too fancy, It was some Menu or Background for a fighting game. I did it first and foremost for my own pleasure and after I realised that other people might like my changes, I put it in the net to SHARE the Pleasure with others. Never did I think about making money with it because it never was business it was always fun. I did not even mind if people used my mod as a base for their works. The only rule for me was "dont make money with it".

 

Did they even think this through? Mods enjoy much more freedom then DLCs even can for example. If you make a Mod and it is not fully compatible with the game, well you might "fix" it or you might not...its free after all right? but if ppl have paid for it they WILL DEMAND Compatibility...its their right. If there is a Bug in your Mod and you dont want or have the time to fix it, there might be rage in the comments and "shitstorm" but no legal obligation. Will that still be the case once you start charging for it? Nobody in his right mind would sue you over a mod you created in your spare time and sharing for free with others...put paid content? entirely a different thing.

 

Same issue with content. With mods there is great liberty in putting nearly whatever you like in them but once its a paid product you will find yourself in a great conflict with copyrights, moral borders, law, political correctness etc. You will have to check your mod for possibly offensive, sexually abusive, politically hazardous or generally "unacceptable" content. You will lose a good portion of creativity just by monetizing your hobby.

 

If everything in Life becomes about Money then everything in Life will have a Price Tag, including you. Then everything will have a Number and that Number will be its worth...not a penny more. If that is what you wish then just do nothing and let things happen.

 

P.S. Sorry I am a little late for the "Show". I belong to the "older" Generation of gamers and age does set other priorities. Thats why I am happy to see a new Generation of Gamers fighting for their cause. I hope and wish to see that coming generations can enjoy Modding like we did with no strings attached, no limits to their creativity and none of the worries they will inevitably have in other parts of their lives. Keep your Hobby clean and invaluable, it is what makes life worth living. No Price Tag means its worth more then money can buy.

 

Thanks!

Edited May 2, 2015 by Arcadiast

[treota]

In response to post #24873139. #24874159, #24874314, #24874474, #24874519, #24874634, #24874639, #24874729, #24874774, #24874924, #24874984, #24875019, #24875044, #24875074, #24875124, #24875219, #24875289, #24875334, #24875454, #24875484, #24875669, #24876774, #24876829, #24877709, #24877889, #24877969, #24878254, #24878299, #24878569, #24878604, #24878759, #24879069, #24879579, #24879589 are all replies on the same post.

thefinn wrote: I doubt they will drop this.

They will do more research than smoking some doobies in the coffee lounge at valve and saying "You know what would be cool ?" then we'll see something similar coming up again in the future.

There's way too much money involved for this to go away.

Personally, if they'd just add a "donate" button and not try to "sell mods" that might go down better.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: With the next TES game, I could see them charging for the Creation Kit, and then setting it so you have to "share" your mods on a specific website they control, and then charging people a flat-access rate to the website.

Oh, and I can see them releasing the next TES game even more incomplete than Skyrim. Release a barebones game, make money off it, then let the modders finish your game, and make money off of that too. I bet I've just given some pencil pusher at Bethesda a 3-inch erection.

wulfharth wrote: That's called an alpha release, and that happens everyday.

Bethesda has always tried hard to keep everyone happy (except with the exclusive DLC period releases). They just wanted to give people who make mods a chance to do it for a living. Shame on them for creating jobs and stimulating the mod community. They should all kill themselves. Right? Should I make a sign protest mod about them offering opportunity?

How do I block this guy? The option isn't at the bottom of his posts.

wulfharth wrote: Ha! I found out where to do it, but I can't block you Vesuvius1745 because you've never contributed a mod, so you aren't listed as an author.

So why again do you feel you have the right to have an opinion on what actual mod contributor's are allowed to do with their mods? You aren't even one of us.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize the corporation known as Bethesda was being altruistic, and just wanted to stimulate the economy while at the same time giving amateur mod authors their Big Break. You're not only a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, you're a glass-is-half-full when it's actually empty kind of guy.

Instead of trying to make a buck off of mod authors, they should concentrate on making sure the next TES release is stable and complete. Yes, game companies are releasing their games earlier and earlier, and frankly, many gamers are sick of paying to Beta test unfinished products.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Good question, wulth. As someone who paid for Skyrim, I have the same right as the 133,000+ other people who signed the petition given to Bethesda telling them what we thought of this pay-for system.

I suspect the pencil pusher who came up with this idea is probably shaking in his boots. Wondering if he will have a job next month. Maybe he's even trolling these forums to test the waters, and not liking what he is seeing.

thefinn wrote: Well I am a pretty harsh critic of games, I think Skyrim is one of the best I've played in years.

There might've been some bugs at launch, but few are the games you'll find without them and frankly with the size of Skyrim they are to be expected.

I don't see how it was "incomplete".

wulfharth wrote: @Vesuvius-Instead of telling super successful multi-million dollar corporations with giant and loyal fan bases how to run their businesses, you should go try and make a dungeon or create and add a custom 3D model. I'm sure you'll change your tune very quickly.

You have no frame of reference for what it means or takes to be a mod author. Stop telling everyone what to do or what they should do. You aren't qualified.

thefinn wrote: The difference being that the question for you is "Can I still get free stuff?" while the question for modders is "Is this a system I find reasonable to work with?"

The only saving grace to me was the thought that perhaps I should start putting together my feminine walk mod again to be paid for, or to be the free alternative to the other mod of its' kind. It actually made me think this (for the very small mods I have done) it was in fact my first thought.

So it can indeed instill the impetus in modders to mod.

However, the drawbacks of the current idea are awful.

It leaves the door open for game companies to make mods "steam only" in the future for benefits to the bottom line for instance.

wulfharth wrote: The official paid DLC is Steam only. Why not the smaller not official but sanctioned DLC? We always have the Nexus if modders want to choose to throw up an donate button to not get pressed and give free work to the sweet and loving community.

thefinn wrote: You're missing the point.

They can make the game so that when it runs it only allows mods that steam downloaded.

And they would be...
1) In their rights to do so.
2) getting more profits by doing so and they are corporations you know?

Reaper0021 wrote: thefinn is right in that regard. IF THEY WANTED to be tyrannical about it that is.

thefinn wrote: And when have you known corporations not to be ?

DRM itself had huge backlash at the time... but here it is still.

Reaper0021 wrote: I agree with you thefinn. I'll tell you one that isn't and I defy you to say otherwise: CDProjekt Red. But in all aspects of this you're 100% right.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Wulf, your ad hominem aside, I'm not going to post my resume because it's irrelevant. Every person who bought Skyrim (they are called customers) have an absolute right to tell Bethesda what they think of their business practices. It doesn't matter if not a single one of those 133,000 people who signed the petition never wrote a mod, or has not done something YOU think "qualifies" them to giver their opinion. They still get to give it.

Of course Bethesda is under no obligation to listen to their customers. In this case they did. They probably also realized what a Hiroshima-type disaster this was, and if they were smart, fired the individual(s) responsible for this abortion of creativity.

wulfharth wrote: If Bethesda wanted to be tyrants, they probably wouldn't have out of pocketed to provide and update the creation kit. And that's just for the PC gamers mind you. That is a special gift just to us that is more valuable than any 10 mods on here. You should feel loved and have more faith in them.

wulfharth wrote: Vesuvius-You are Bethesda's customer. Not mine. I don't want your made up resume. All I know is that you haven't posted a single mod. You aren't a modder. Why are you telling us what we can do with our work?

Reaper0021 wrote: It's not about lack of love or faith. It's about common business practices. A business remains a business as long as it can "TURN A PROFIT" and when it can't no longer (ATARI, Commodore, SEGA, etc.) then it stops becoming a business and becomes a share holders nightmare. All of this is just theory talk...but in the back of my mind I remain cautious about what the future holds.

thefinn wrote: Totally agree, if I were going to have love or faith (without going to church) it'd be in the Nexus, not some new system Valve has talked Bethesda into.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I, nor anybody else, is telling mod authors what they can or cannot do with their "work". As Bethesda's customers, we explained to them we did not want a pay-for paradigm for mods. We gave our opinion, which as customers we have every right to give. They didn't have to listen to their customers, but they did. Since Bethesda owns the Intellectual property rights to Skyrim, and mod authors sign their EULA accepting their contract, it is Bethesda who gets to tell mod authors what they can or cannot do with their derivative creations. If a mod author is upset by that, then they should take it up with Bethesda. Or mod for a game that allows paid-for mods. Whining about it here, or getting upset with the people who bought Skyrim and gave their opinion, is not going to be fruitful.

Reaper0021 wrote: And to continue on this point by Vesuvius1745....when I give my $$$$ for anything in this world be it new tires, PC parts, cable T.V./internet, books, food, games, music, etc. I HAVE the right as a paying customer to offer my critique or displeasure or ANYTHING with what I paid for if it doesn't meet my expectations as a customer. I don't have to be a tire manufacturer to offer my opinion that I like Firestone better than the other brands. You make no sense man in your argument. You act as if we are indebted to Bethesda and I can assure you it's the other way around. Kudos given to Vesuvius1745.

crashpilot wrote: @Wulfharth,

Since there is not that much of your work you have to worry about, I would say let us our opinion and we let you yours.

Pauliwhop wrote: You don't have to be a doctor to sue for Malpractice. Try again.

treota wrote: "All I know is that you haven't posted a single mod, so you are not a modder" - This is basically the same as telling a carpenter they aren't valid because they have never carved mahogany, who is to say that he has never contributed anything to any modding scene for any game ever created or even created content that he didn't feel like uploading.

More close to home telling a critic that their opinion is worthless because they have never done what they critique (which is pretty common).

I'm 99% sure that there are plenty of food critics for example that have never been professional chefs.

thefinn wrote: The fact that your chair is made of wood, doesn't make you a carpenter.

sunshinenbrick wrote: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing."

Nicholas Butler

treota wrote: The carpenter idea was based on the person having modded something at some point in their life which is probably (not always of course) the case if said person has a keen interest in modding.

Being a creator does not make your opinion more or less valid than your consumer. :)

oldnotweak wrote: we need a block function so every mod author can block Vesuvius and people like him

Vesuvius1745 wrote: @Oldnottweak It would be easier to just take all your mods off the Nexus, otherwise you will have to block about aprox. 133,000+ people (the number of people who signed that petition given to Bethesda).

And since we are blocking people who think differently than us, then maybe the "Forever Free" modders will block YOU from all of their mods, and the programmers of ENB, SKSE, Wyre Bash, and every other utility you've benefited from can block your IP so you can no longer download their stuff.

It can be a giant block festival. Wouldn't that be fun?

Ghatto wrote: Oh yeah that wouldn't go horribly wrong now would it?

thefinn wrote: Being a creator doesn't make my opinion more valid than my consumer regarding the mod sure.

However, being the creator makes my opinion more valid than my consumer regarding the system by which I make (or not) money off my creation.

Otherwise we'd be looking at a society where we had no money at all.
Noone would ever want to pay for anything and that'd be it.

So obviously the people at say Mattel decide that they are gonna charge money for their s#*!.

Your opinion on that matter ... doesn't matter. Where there's money to be made - corporations go.

At this point paid modding will be coming in. There's little doubt of that.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-05-01-sooner-or-later-paid-for-mods-are-coming

The only question remains "how?" and "when?"

The system itself is important, and if people want to enter a discussion saying "there shouldn't be a system" they are just gonna be ignored by I'd have to say - the large majority of modders and likely valve too. Expect it.

From Gabe's comments he's aware of the fact they screwed up by using Skyrim as the entry point for this change in the platform on steam. This probably means there will be years before we see a Bethesda game take on paid modding. (Fallout IV or TES VI most likely).

The issue remains will it start to encroach on the nexus, will it stifle modding ?!

Will the word "modding" merely change meaning - like so many other things do over time (and usually not for the better).

For instance what happens if the Unofficial Skyrim Patch goes paid ?

HEAPS of other modders have to change their mods (Through TESVEdit) to encompass changes in USP each time Arthmoor updates it. Otherwise their mods overwrite his changes.

Do they have to pay for USP ? That seems like a fairly central issue too - dependencies.

There are still a lot of question for Bethesda imo.
I'm not sure if I'm for or against the whole idea.

Ghatto wrote: I disagree. I don't see why my opinion shouldn't retain value simply because it criticises the system as a whole and makes clear my desire to go without it. I understand how it positions myself in the argument as 'either/or' rather than compromise but that's that. Yes it's a see-saw that goes both ways; government policy has been that decisive for generations and we could all benefit on compromise there, but unfortunately that still doesn't work because it then creates a new 'either/or' which is instead a 'enjoy compromise/suffer compromise'.

Tyerial12 wrote: problem is we know its comming but mod authors better be aware pirates will come as well.

Someone will buy your mod then release it on free sites anonomsly and bam free mod

WightMage wrote: Have we really come to this?

@thefinn
I agree with pretty much everything there, however the consumer does vastly dictate the payment platform. If consumers disagree with the way said creators make money then they will not spend their money there and the creator will have no choice but to try a different way of making money. (for the record I totally agree paid mods are here to stay, nothing to be done about it now)

Which is where the somewhat wrong saying comes from "the customer is always right". (yeah I hate that crap too, worked in retail for a few years and that line just grinds the gears) It is true in the sense that if the customer disagrees then your job and livelihood is down the drain.

Any opinion is the same value as any other opinion, it's the person who decides which opinions are more or less valid to them personally.

[treota]

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, #24869854, #24874009, #24874879, #24878894 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 (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.

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 wrote: I don't have time to respond to all of that at the moment.

I will say I am not aware of any situation where the pay-for mod paradigm has been successful. DOTA? If what you say is correct, then perhaps all the mod authors who want to be paid could start modding for DOTA instead. Problem solved.

thefinn wrote: I think the main difference is the different "culture" between modders getting paid for something and a corporation getting paid for something.

There's a pretty big culture difference there.

As I said in my above thread, my first thought was to start modding again when I heard about "paid mods" so it goes to show that it can instil the productivity mood in someone to consider they might get something out of it.

However, this particular system they put forward is too awful once you look into it..

Ghatto wrote: Not only that but DoTA mods et. al. are not really 'mods' they're 'skins'. Yes for decades now they're practically synonymous, but the major difference is that a 'mod' tends to require the author to turn the game inside out in order to change gameplay and fit add things that didn't exist before, something that game developers either facilitate nicely, or tolerate begrudgingly. Skins though, are mostly innocuous; nothing but a palette swap or some new models overriding others, and in DoTA's case: fully compatible by the way of developers full facilitation.

Even though I'm fully against stuff like DoTAs implementation, I'll admit that it should have a low rate of customer dissatisfaction thanks to the above. Skyrim however, would've tumbled and burned in ways well beyond the tribulations of this recent debacle.

Also DOTA is free, kinda puts people more in the mood to buy additional content when they have not already paid for the game.

[strudo]

I feel the donation system as it stands is flawed in that any suggestion of donating appears during the download phase, before it's even been played. I'd hazard that people aren't likely to want to donate for a mod they haven't even commenced downloading yet, and once it parts of the extensive list of mods, tracking down a particular mod on Nexus to donate probably doesn't get a look in.

I'd like to see the mod managers get on board, offering the option there of donating. Perhaps a function that can list mods sorted by length of time installed, which would offer users a method of seeing which of their list of mods have 'stood the test of time' so to speak, and are worthy of revisiting on the Nexus and making a donation.

MO has an icon for not endorsed mods. Maybe an icon for not donated (that can just be cleared manually, or the ability to highlight a mod with a donate reminder (for mod users in their individual mod manager, not by mod authors to apply to all downloads of their mod). The point being it needs to be something in the mod manager, since the donate options on Nexus only get seen when visiting the site, which occurs much less frequently when actually playing the content which is under consideration for donations.

Edited May 2, 2015 by strudo