Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24941974. #24942164, #24950944, #24954954, #24957374, #24957899 are all replies on the same post.

sunshinenbrick wrote:

 

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, #24882059, #24884249, #24885029, #24885084, #24885349, #24885354, #24885399, #24885969, #24885999, #24887819, #24887979, #24888049, #24888949, #24889684, #24891174, #24938644 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. :smile:

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?

treota wrote: @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.

wulfharth wrote: @crashpilot- Good morning. I had a lot more up, but I pulled them down because the community showed how appreciative it is. I'm re-working most of it to release when paid mods come back. Which will probably be with TES6. If you check the credits in the top 20 file "Immersive Weapons", you will see that I made that entire dragonbone weapon set. You've likely been using my weapons for years.

I've pulled everything down. The more our community shows it's true colors, the more mod authors will follow suit.

Tyerial12 wrote: @wulfharth lol oh well then guess we dont see your mods for free it dont bother me one bit.. Ill give my money to non chilish mod authors

np11 wrote: @wulfharth Good PR there, I'd love to see how many people who've actually seen you post will buy these fabled mods.

People, before you start selling things, you should really take some business, marketing or even psychology classes. Addressing potential customers like that and expecting your business to flourish... Good luck with that.

Tanesis12 wrote: @ Vesuvius1745 I think that paid mods will be on the next Beth game, whether TES or FO. I don't think however it will imact quality as that would be a second pr disaster that Beth don't need.

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

I think that Beth would want more control over modding in general if theres money involved. If only 1 site was allowed to run paid mods then mod authors would obviously prefere that site if they directly benefitted (I think?).

Incorporation of real life monies will change the way people use mods drasitcally and alter the relationship between mod author and mod consumer, the later who is now a customer (who should be able to expect certain consumer rights but thats a different issue). I can't help but feel that when, rather than if, mods become paid the only real winners will be Beth & Valve.

Also good posts thefinn, nicely insightful.

3AMt wrote: Horse armors, swords and hats for 1.99 each for everyone. Yeah have fun selling mods.

Brasscatcher wrote: I do try to avoid name calling, but I will call stupid behavior what it is. Most of this thread is full of stupid. Go ahead, accept Bethesda's offer. I bet every single one of you won't see a single bit of useful profit from anything you create. If you think trash-talking or belittling part of the community, or attempting to invalidate the opinions of one part of the community will net you anything, you are incorrect.


Stop being stupid. Be productive instead.

CaladanAnduril wrote: Wulfharth

You should toughen your emotional "skin" if you want to stay in the modders community.
People like vesuvius will ALWAYS have DEMANDS, stupid and irrelevant for you.

Because THAT is what he want to smoke screen behind his fancy words and pseudo arguments, his pitiful demands.

Hi have paid for Skyrim game? ... good for him.
But he HAD NOT paid for YOUR or ANYONE mod, he could comment as long as he wish about Skyrim but when talking about your mods, your acts and your decisions, he's pure and simple hypocrite.

Again, if you paid for Skyrim

fru1tcak3s wrote: > charging for the Creation Kit

Open source creation kit :tongue:

wulfharth wrote: I don't need to have good PR with people who think they deserve everything for free. That's a pretty crappy customer base to build.

I'm moving on to another mod community. This one will be dead fairly soon. Be well all. I wish you all the luck in the world.

Brasscatcher wrote: Well...bye! :smile:

thefinn wrote: Yeah tend to agree, I think TB/Dark0ne/Brumbek say it best here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5aavBAplp5A#t=4867

If you're just downloading and not contributing, not a forum user, not even hitting the endorse button - then who cares what your opinion is? It's only going to be the usual kinds of self-serving entitled crap that we see everywhere else on the net.

np11 wrote: @wulfharth How crappy the customer base is is irrelevant. You want their money and you want to make a profit. That's all a business needs to know. If your customers are becoming a huge bother, you can deny them services, but you need to do so as politely as possible. The moment you start bickering and being aggressive to your customers, you've lost the game. Look at Valve and Bethesda's responses for god's sake. You'll get a feel of what a professional response should be like.

Well, have fun and good luck then.

WightMage wrote: @np11

As someone who works in customer service and has their own business on the side, I could not agree more.

Tyerial12 wrote: @wulfharth

For one i dont believe or want everything FREE i want a fair and working system that makes sure when we BUY A MOD that it works as it should and if it dosent we get more than one day for a refund or a way to contact the mod author if we want a fix. Prob is if a mod author just quits doing it means NOW the user is stuck with a broken mod.

also people are going to charge WAY to much for a mod that just adds one item or changes a couple textures. there needs to be a limit on this

But with the way your acting good luck on your future bussiness practices

hector530 wrote: "I, nor anybody else, is telling mod authors what they can or cannot do with their "work""

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA good one

Hey! - My self-serving entitled crap is special. I have a sixth grade award somewhere that proves it. Blue ribbon and everything. When I saw the news about mods I figured "oh well, I'll decide which of these are actually worth paying for and which are just nice". When I saw the business arrangement I thought "They're turning these people into contract labor without incurring any associated overhead. I hope some of them are smart enough to run this by their lawyers". If you are running a small business (which is essentially what you will be doing under the paid mods model) always have an accountant and a lawyer on retainer. It's not expensive for what you get. The more I read, with the policies they were putting into place and the vitriol from some users, the more I became of the opinion that modders were getting screwed by both sides without the courtesy of a kiss or reach around. With the exception of a couple that I would happily trip with one of my canes because their egos seem out-sized, I do have sympathy for them.

As a user (I can't mod for shite) I understand that I have been getting something that the creators have chosen to share and I thank them for it. I do not however think that negates my opinion because the relationship between the two groups is symbiotic. I see this as a poorly executed trial balloon by Valve and Bethesda. Paid mods will be back with FO4 or TES6 but they will have put a lot more thought into it than they did this time around.

 

Kudos!

Vesuvius1745 wrote: lol nice

retnav98 wrote: Do you really think they let the trial run long enough to learn all the lessons they could?

The business arrangement is not new...in fact I think it is typical. Why would you pay for something if there was a workforce willing to work without it?

Back in the 1800's A gentleman went to the UK and for 2 years observed how raw materials were Milled to produce textiles, He came back to the US and from memory, recreated the US's first textile factories. (notice he was given access to the means to create something and never paid to get it) In the early days, Entire towns were established around this ONE industry. Women were paid in room and board as well as a relatively significant monthly rate of pay...they even had Medical benefits
At a point coincident with a marked increase in European immigration..a large number of people who lived in SHANTY TOWNS, were found to be willing to work for far less, As a result, the doctors were no longer necessary, neither were the Boarding houses.

The industry started because the US didn't want to ship cotton to the UK and then have the textiles shipped back to the US to convert fabric to clothing. It may not have been the original intention to so drastically undercut the cost of labor, but when that savings became apparent, why would anyone expect them to refuse it?

aegiltheugly wrote: @RETNAV98 - I think they ran they trial balloon long enough to find out that introducing paid mods into an older game where they were formerly free is a bad idea. I think they ran it long enough to get an idea of what problems not having some of the more respected and essential mods under their control presents. I also think they have Marketing and R&D watching the forums very closely to see what continuing issues they will have to address when introducing paid mods with FO4 or TES6. There will still be some bugs and complaints when it is finally rolled out but they will have addressed most of the major concerns.

By the way, its good to see someone that okay with a return to the employer/employee relations of the 1800's. Maybe Valve and Bethesda can get some small children to clean their offices while they are at it. Those child labor laws are just pesky. ;-)

retnav98 wrote: I was saying relative to the era, towns like Lowell, Mass. and others built almost IDEAL working conditions, only to cut costs in favor of profit...The point as I attempted to convey,(stated outright) was that it isn't NEW.

Even the most altruistic businesses are not tethered to the WORKER's issues. It's ironic too that of all the labor abuses of the 19th century, you key on CHILD labor....since CHILDREN can and DO publish MODS. I have no doubt that Valve had no interest in determining how much time a KID spent per day or how late into a 'School Night' they stayed up MODDING...and since those KIDS contributed to the "Community" and by extension Valve/Bethesda's PROFITS...
They already are "Getting kids to clean...".

The Midas mod that employed pop-ups in the free version to advertise the Pay version was not likely to be detected by a cursory glance. And it certainly wouldn't have been found if the scrutiny was only applied to the PAY MOD. The change over from Free to pay as Valve was attempting...didn't last long enough to realize all the ways it could be subverted...Maybe they think they have enough experience with other PAY MOD models...but if that were the case...they certainly didn't show it.

aegiltheugly wrote: Oh.....So no child labor then? ;-( Because I have an obnoxious nephew that.....well....never mind.....forget I said anything!

I'm not aware of any pay-for mod system that has ever worked. Some have said DOTA, but without writing an essay, that's a horse of a different color (and "successful" is very subjective when applied to that example).

And the: "well back in the day, so-and-so learned how to do such-and-such for free and then got paid!" analogy also is incorrect. The reason it is incorrect is because we have a relatively new paradigm here with the advent of computers and the internet (not to mention journeymen never learned anything for "free"--they "paid" through their labor given to the Master of whatever trade).

The paradigm we have here is the "open source" community where people freely share thoughts, ideas, and "work" with each other. This paradigm doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of people getting paid for *whatever*, it just makes the discussion of such a thing more dynamic.

The bottom line is this paradigm has worked great for over a decade with Skyrim mods (and we have been given professional and higher quality material than anything Bethesda has charged us for), and it is my belief that if something ain't broke, you don't fix it. When you try to fix something that ain't broke, just look at the Sims Modding community and how that worked out.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Vesuvius1745

[Hookko]

In response to post #24949999. #24951589, #24955079, #24955234 are all replies on the same post.

OH72 wrote:

 

In response to post #24947964.

"That's not how these things work, alas. Your fractions do not represent how buying decisions are made."

I never said nor implied they were. I was writing about the ramification from Bethesda's perspective.

 

Which you didn't describe correctly

 

 

 

 

I could just as easily state that many that end up using mods did not anticipate mod use and therefore valued the unit for less initially. This means for this factor to have an effect on the stated 8% the number of those intending to use mods, and who therefore ascribed greater value to the unit, would have to substantially outnumber those that never intended to use mods, and who therefore ascribed a lower value to the product. This is of course purely speculative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a very credible argument, as the availability of mods is a key part of the TES brand.

 

 

I never argued that mod use did not contribute to sales or the longevity of the game. I only argued that it empirically, demonstrably, qualitatively modding didn't contribute enough to warrant the claims by some that modding is the raison d'etre for Skyrim's success. Also the creation of the mod kit added additional upfront costs, though not necessarily substantial.

 

 

But the latter is the point: ANY effort towards life cycle extension adds costs. The creation of the mod kit is about as cheap as life cycle extension can come - compared with the supply of comparable content by Bethesda, and especially the opportunity cost of working on Skyrim content rather than FO4 or TESVI content, the mod kit is negligible in cost.

 

You are exaggerating by saying it has nothing to do with lost profits. You could quantitatively ascertain the WACC Bethesda used and then determine the net present value of their free income stream with respect to time preference but the basis of this calculation is the initial cash flow. Generally speaking FCF/(1+WACC)^T, or similar NPV equations or FV equations, over the relatively short existence of Skyrims life would hardly warrant the assertion of "says nothing". Though I'm not disagreeing that it would have SOME effect.

 

 

I never said it has nothing to do with lost profits. I said it says nothing about lost profits, it allows no real conclusion to be drawn.

 

But you are making a fundamental mistake here, though I know it's one that's quite common. You are using averages for grossly asymmetrical distributions - that's not a valid use of statistics. It makes a significant difference whether you lose 4% of sales at a time when the price is $70 or whether you lose them over the whole lifespan when for the vast majority of that lifespan, the price is is dramatically below $70.

 

You assertion would also have to strongly positively correlate early purchase with mod usage instead of the alternate possibility of mod users purchases being distributed across time without preference.

 

 

Since sales in general are not distributed across time without preference, it is unreasonable to assume that would be different for mod users.

You are of course assuming most of the modding parameters would remain the same. I can only speculate but I would assume a fewer number of more comprehensive mods with greater in built compatibility for other popular mods would sell. I can only speculate but assume mod organization utilities would be created if modding generated millions in revenue.

 

 

No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation.

 

People shouldn’t sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so.

 

That's wishful thinking. Not only did Valve not only point out to people what they were getting themselves into, they discouraged them implicitly from educating themselves. But that's not even the end of it, because Valve themselves are notoriously ignorant of legal obligations outside the US.

 

The evidence that this premise is based upon is fairly abundant. Sales data alone, with the assumption of statistically insignificant utilization of non pc platform modding, would indicate an upper limit on mod utilization of 14%. Their assertion of 8% does not seem unreasonable.

 

 

Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't support your premise, as it ignores the issue of branding and the influence branding has on sales.

 

I’m simply pointing out the relative unimportant of modding to the success of Skyrim. Not that it didn’t help. Only that people shouldn't exaggerate how much. Without extreme speculation and assumptions there is simply little reason to believe that modder, modding, the community, ect. had any more than marginal contributions to the commercial success of Skyrim.

 

 

Neither extreme speculations nor assumptions, just the understanding that Skyrim doesn't exist in a void and is not TESI but TESV.

bullpcp wrote: “Which you didn't describe correctly”

You assert that I didn't describe correctly, without stating exactly what I didn't describe correctly. If you are referring to the fact that I was writing about Bethesda it is specifically and explicitly stated in the first paragraph.

If you mean you disagree with my conclusions... no kidding.

“Not a very credible argument, as the availability of mods is a key part of the TES brand.”

You assert unequivocally that mods are a key part of the TES brand without addressing any of the statistical data to the contrary. Only 8% of Skyrim players use mods. Ostensibly fewer would be affected by their absence. I guess your opinions and assertions my be good enough for others but as for myself... citation needed.

“But the latter is the point: ANY effort towards life cycle extension adds costs. The creation of the mod kit is about as cheap as life cycle extension can come - compared with the supply of comparable content by Bethesda, and especially the opportunity cost of working on Skyrim content rather than FO4 or TESVI content, the mod kit is negligible in cost.”

You assert that the mod kit added to the longevity of the game which I explicitly stated that I didn't disagree with. Which I later explicitly stated as my own opinion. I also explicitly stated that the cost of creation kit was minimal. Thank you for agreeing with me. Who are you arguing this point against?

“I never said it has nothing to do with lost profits. I said it says nothing about lost profits, it allows no real conclusion to be drawn.”

Please indicate the difference between "has nothing" and "says nothing" and where you wrote"no real conclusions to be drawn". You quite literally wrote, with context so no possibility of taking it out of context.

"So, talking about a reduction in sales as a pure percentage is missing the point - a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits. A 4% loss in sales that manifests itself in week 1 has a much more serious effect on profits than an overall 4% loss that's distributed over the entire lifetime of a game."

Again you quite literally wrote that "a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits." I stated this was an exaggeration, implying it was true is moderation. I assume asymmetry of FCF distribution and then I expressly stated that time preference asymmetry would have some effect on profit.

I had problems with the assumptions that a disproportionate number of mods users are disproportionately responsible for BOTH early sales, and therefore greater up front profits, AND responsible for longevity of cash flows over time. Pick one.

“Since sales in general are not distributed across time without preference, it is unreasonable to assume that would be different for mod users. “

EXACTLY. That is my point. I have been stating this throughout your entire comment.

You can’t have mod users take credit for a disproportionate percent, more than 8%, of earlier sales without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm and they are less responsible for later sales, longevity.

You also can’t say mod users add disproportionately, more than 8%, to the longevity of a games profitable life cycle, a disproportionate portion of latter sales, without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm, and contribute less up front sales and profitability.

You seem to be asserting what appear to be BOTH mutually exclusive and contradictory theories at the same time.

If mod users disproportionately purchase units earlier, and disproportionately fewer units later they contribute more than their percentage would indicate to profits, but less than their percentage would indicate towards longevity or later cash flows. If mod users contribute to disproportionately to longevity, later cash flows, they have to have contributed disproportionately less to earlier cash flows and therefore less to profits than their percent of the market would indicate. Again, pick one or neither.

“No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation. ”

Never state or implied anything about relieving anyone of any duties whatsoever. Never stated nor implied the mod organizer didn't exist. Why would ensuring compatibility “not cut it”? Cut what? I agree that someone purchasing a defective product should get their money back… now who were you replying too in this section… perhaps we should find them?

“That's wishful thinking. Not only did Valve not only point out to people what they were getting themselves into, they discouraged them implicitly from educating themselves. But that's not even the end of it, because Valve themselves are notoriously ignorant of legal obligations outside the US.”

How is stating "People shouldn't sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so. " “wishful thinking”? It was a statement of advice, and legal responsibility, not expectation.

Nobody was discouraged. The contract was open for all to read and the Valve representative explicitly stated that his comment was not legal advice. This could easily be construed as implying the exact opposite of discouraging, but instead actively encouraging legal counsel.

“Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't support your premise, as it ignores the issue of branding and the influence branding has on sales.”

So… a fraction of 14%, or apparently an even smaller fraction of 8%, does not support the premise that only a small portion of Skyrims sales are due to modding? How small of a percentage would you think indicate a small percentage? Considering Bethesda could have eliminated the entire PC market for Skyrim and it still would have been a success.

How exactly does explicitly stating SALES figures somehow ignore “issures of branding and the influence branding has on SALES”? You do understand that influences on sales are inherently included in SALES statistic. Unless somehow the influence of modding influenced the other 86% of the none PC market and the other 6% of the none mod using PC market.

“Neither extreme speculations nor assumptions, just the understanding that Skyrim doesn't exist in a void and is not TESI but TESV.”

What are you going on about? "It doesn't exist in a void" utterly true and completely banal. So what? "TESI but TESV"? Who are you responding to?

Look it would be great if you actually responded to things I've actually written and arguments I've actually made instead of whoever, or whatever, it is you are going on about. Could you do that for me? Umkay? That would be great. (sips coffee)

Peace. :)

bullpcp wrote: Look with all due respect, I would like to have a respectful conversation online but feel like we are writing at each other instead of with each other.

I feel like I'm writing the equivalent of "fire is hot" and your are responding with "No water is wet".

If I came off as snarky I do apologize. I'm a bit of a recovering smart ass.

Peace. :D

Tyerial12 wrote: LOL mods are not KEY to skyrim when will people get this... Skyrim can be played mod free.. my bro and i sometimes do it on weekends..Mods do not make Skyrim they help enjoy them but are not key

on 1 January 1970 1:00:00, said: =x

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24949999. #24951589, #24955079, #24955234, #24964064 are all replies on the same post.

OH72 wrote:

 

In response to post #24947964.

"That's not how these things work, alas. Your fractions do not represent how buying decisions are made."

I never said nor implied they were. I was writing about the ramification from Bethesda's perspective.

 

Which you didn't describe correctly

 

 

 

 

I could just as easily state that many that end up using mods did not anticipate mod use and therefore valued the unit for less initially. This means for this factor to have an effect on the stated 8% the number of those intending to use mods, and who therefore ascribed greater value to the unit, would have to substantially outnumber those that never intended to use mods, and who therefore ascribed a lower value to the product. This is of course purely speculative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a very credible argument, as the availability of mods is a key part of the TES brand.

 

 

I never argued that mod use did not contribute to sales or the longevity of the game. I only argued that it empirically, demonstrably, qualitatively modding didn't contribute enough to warrant the claims by some that modding is the raison d'etre for Skyrim's success. Also the creation of the mod kit added additional upfront costs, though not necessarily substantial.

 

 

But the latter is the point: ANY effort towards life cycle extension adds costs. The creation of the mod kit is about as cheap as life cycle extension can come - compared with the supply of comparable content by Bethesda, and especially the opportunity cost of working on Skyrim content rather than FO4 or TESVI content, the mod kit is negligible in cost.

 

You are exaggerating by saying it has nothing to do with lost profits. You could quantitatively ascertain the WACC Bethesda used and then determine the net present value of their free income stream with respect to time preference but the basis of this calculation is the initial cash flow. Generally speaking FCF/(1+WACC)^T, or similar NPV equations or FV equations, over the relatively short existence of Skyrims life would hardly warrant the assertion of "says nothing". Though I'm not disagreeing that it would have SOME effect.

 

 

I never said it has nothing to do with lost profits. I said it says nothing about lost profits, it allows no real conclusion to be drawn.

 

But you are making a fundamental mistake here, though I know it's one that's quite common. You are using averages for grossly asymmetrical distributions - that's not a valid use of statistics. It makes a significant difference whether you lose 4% of sales at a time when the price is $70 or whether you lose them over the whole lifespan when for the vast majority of that lifespan, the price is is dramatically below $70.

 

You assertion would also have to strongly positively correlate early purchase with mod usage instead of the alternate possibility of mod users purchases being distributed across time without preference.

 

 

Since sales in general are not distributed across time without preference, it is unreasonable to assume that would be different for mod users.

You are of course assuming most of the modding parameters would remain the same. I can only speculate but I would assume a fewer number of more comprehensive mods with greater in built compatibility for other popular mods would sell. I can only speculate but assume mod organization utilities would be created if modding generated millions in revenue.

 

 

No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation.

 

People shouldn’t sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so.

 

That's wishful thinking. Not only did Valve not only point out to people what they were getting themselves into, they discouraged them implicitly from educating themselves. But that's not even the end of it, because Valve themselves are notoriously ignorant of legal obligations outside the US.

 

The evidence that this premise is based upon is fairly abundant. Sales data alone, with the assumption of statistically insignificant utilization of non pc platform modding, would indicate an upper limit on mod utilization of 14%. Their assertion of 8% does not seem unreasonable.

 

 

Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't support your premise, as it ignores the issue of branding and the influence branding has on sales.

 

I’m simply pointing out the relative unimportant of modding to the success of Skyrim. Not that it didn’t help. Only that people shouldn't exaggerate how much. Without extreme speculation and assumptions there is simply little reason to believe that modder, modding, the community, ect. had any more than marginal contributions to the commercial success of Skyrim.

 

 

Neither extreme speculations nor assumptions, just the understanding that Skyrim doesn't exist in a void and is not TESI but TESV.

bullpcp wrote: “Which you didn't describe correctly”

You assert that I didn't describe correctly, without stating exactly what I didn't describe correctly. If you are referring to the fact that I was writing about Bethesda it is specifically and explicitly stated in the first paragraph.

If you mean you disagree with my conclusions... no kidding.

“Not a very credible argument, as the availability of mods is a key part of the TES brand.”

You assert unequivocally that mods are a key part of the TES brand without addressing any of the statistical data to the contrary. Only 8% of Skyrim players use mods. Ostensibly fewer would be affected by their absence. I guess your opinions and assertions my be good enough for others but as for myself... citation needed.

“But the latter is the point: ANY effort towards life cycle extension adds costs. The creation of the mod kit is about as cheap as life cycle extension can come - compared with the supply of comparable content by Bethesda, and especially the opportunity cost of working on Skyrim content rather than FO4 or TESVI content, the mod kit is negligible in cost.”

You assert that the mod kit added to the longevity of the game which I explicitly stated that I didn't disagree with. Which I later explicitly stated as my own opinion. I also explicitly stated that the cost of creation kit was minimal. Thank you for agreeing with me. Who are you arguing this point against?

“I never said it has nothing to do with lost profits. I said it says nothing about lost profits, it allows no real conclusion to be drawn.”

Please indicate the difference between "has nothing" and "says nothing" and where you wrote"no real conclusions to be drawn". You quite literally wrote, with context so no possibility of taking it out of context.

"So, talking about a reduction in sales as a pure percentage is missing the point - a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits. A 4% loss in sales that manifests itself in week 1 has a much more serious effect on profits than an overall 4% loss that's distributed over the entire lifetime of a game."

Again you quite literally wrote that "a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits." I stated this was an exaggeration, implying it was true is moderation. I assume asymmetry of FCF distribution and then I expressly stated that time preference asymmetry would have some effect on profit.

I had problems with the assumptions that a disproportionate number of mods users are disproportionately responsible for BOTH early sales, and therefore greater up front profits, AND responsible for longevity of cash flows over time. Pick one.

“Since sales in general are not distributed across time without preference, it is unreasonable to assume that would be different for mod users. “

EXACTLY. That is my point. I have been stating this throughout your entire comment.

You can’t have mod users take credit for a disproportionate percent, more than 8%, of earlier sales without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm and they are less responsible for later sales, longevity.

You also can’t say mod users add disproportionately, more than 8%, to the longevity of a games profitable life cycle, a disproportionate portion of latter sales, without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm, and contribute less up front sales and profitability.

You seem to be asserting what appear to be BOTH mutually exclusive and contradictory theories at the same time.

If mod users disproportionately purchase units earlier, and disproportionately fewer units later they contribute more than their percentage would indicate to profits, but less than their percentage would indicate towards longevity or later cash flows. If mod users contribute to disproportionately to longevity, later cash flows, they have to have contributed disproportionately less to earlier cash flows and therefore less to profits than their percent of the market would indicate. Again, pick one or neither.

“No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation. ”

Never state or implied anything about relieving anyone of any duties whatsoever. Never stated nor implied the mod organizer didn't exist. Why would ensuring compatibility “not cut it”? Cut what? I agree that someone purchasing a defective product should get their money back… now who were you replying too in this section… perhaps we should find them?

“That's wishful thinking. Not only did Valve not only point out to people what they were getting themselves into, they discouraged them implicitly from educating themselves. But that's not even the end of it, because Valve themselves are notoriously ignorant of legal obligations outside the US.”

How is stating "People shouldn't sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so. " “wishful thinking”? It was a statement of advice, and legal responsibility, not expectation.

Nobody was discouraged. The contract was open for all to read and the Valve representative explicitly stated that his comment was not legal advice. This could easily be construed as implying the exact opposite of discouraging, but instead actively encouraging legal counsel.

“Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't support your premise, as it ignores the issue of branding and the influence branding has on sales.”

So… a fraction of 14%, or apparently an even smaller fraction of 8%, does not support the premise that only a small portion of Skyrims sales are due to modding? How small of a percentage would you think indicate a small percentage? Considering Bethesda could have eliminated the entire PC market for Skyrim and it still would have been a success.

How exactly does explicitly stating SALES figures somehow ignore “issures of branding and the influence branding has on SALES”? You do understand that influences on sales are inherently included in SALES statistic. Unless somehow the influence of modding influenced the other 86% of the none PC market and the other 6% of the none mod using PC market.

“Neither extreme speculations nor assumptions, just the understanding that Skyrim doesn't exist in a void and is not TESI but TESV.”

What are you going on about? "It doesn't exist in a void" utterly true and completely banal. So what? "TESI but TESV"? Who are you responding to?

Look it would be great if you actually responded to things I've actually written and arguments I've actually made instead of whoever, or whatever, it is you are going on about. Could you do that for me? Umkay? That would be great. (sips coffee)

Peace. :)

bullpcp wrote: Look with all due respect, I would like to have a respectful conversation online but feel like we are writing at each other instead of with each other.

I feel like I'm writing the equivalent of "fire is hot" and your are responding with "No water is wet".

If I came off as snarky I do apologize. I'm a bit of a recovering smart ass.

Peace. :D

Tyerial12 wrote: LOL mods are not KEY to skyrim when will people get this... Skyrim can be played mod free.. my bro and i sometimes do it on weekends..Mods do not make Skyrim they help enjoy them but are not key

Hookko wrote: on 1 January 1970 1:00:00, said: =x

For me, mods are key. After playing with mods, I could never go back to Vanilla Skyrim. For one thing, it looks like Minecraft in comparison. I suspect the only reason people can play Skyrim on the console is because they've never tried it on a PC with mods. If all you've ever eaten were hamburgers, you don't know what you are missing out on with the Prime Rib dinner.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24954969. #24957519 is also a reply to the same post.

OH72 wrote:

 

You assert that I didn't describe correctly, without stating exactly what I didn't describe correctly. If you are referring to the fact that I was writing about Bethesda it is specifically and explicitly stated in the first paragraph.

 

I pointed out what part of the consequences you were not describing correctly.

 

You assert unequivocally that mods are a key part of the TES brand without addressing any of the statistical data to the contrary. Only 8% of Skyrim players use mods. Ostensibly fewer would be affected by their absence. I guess your opinions and assertions my be good enough for others but as for myself... citation needed.

 

 

Sorry, but your reference to Skyrim data is no data "to the contrary". Skyrim does not define the TES brand. The TES brand is defined by the expecations established by the previous games and the auxiliary information released. The very fact that people expected a mod tool would be released for Skyrim illustrates that the availability of mods was understood to be a standard fare of the franchise.

 

 

You assert that the mod kit added to the longevity of the game which I explicitly stated that I didn't disagree with. Which I later explicitly stated as my own opinion. I also explicitly stated that the cost of creation kit was minimal. Thank you for agreeing with me. Who are you arguing this point against?

 

 

I am pointing out the flaws in your argumentation - if you accept A, you have to conclude B.

Please indicate the difference between "has nothing" and "says nothing" and where you wrote"no real conclusions to be drawn". You quite literally wrote, with context so no possibility of taking it out of context.

"So, talking about a reduction in sales as a pure percentage is missing the point - a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits. A 4% loss in sales that manifests itself in week 1 has a much more serious effect on profits than an overall 4% loss that's distributed over the entire lifetime of a game."

Again you quite literally wrote that "a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits." I stated this was an exaggeration, implying it was true is moderation. I assume asymmetry of FCF distribution and then I expressly stated that time preference asymmetry would have some effect on profit.

 

Yes, it says nothing - it does not make any statement either way. That's a fundamentally different thing about there being no connection with it.

 

 

You can’t have mod users take credit for a disproportionate percent, more than 8%, of earlier sales without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm and they are less responsible for later sales, longevity.
You also can’t say mod users add disproportionately, more than 8%, to the longevity of a games profitable life cycle, a disproportionate portion of latter sales, without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm, and contribute less up front sales and profitability.

 

 

I never said so, but I see where you are getting confused. You are confusing effects of mod USERS with effects of the existence of mods. They are very, very, distinct thing.

 

Someone who buys Skyrim now knows that there are mods which can bring the graphics more up to date, so that IF they dislike the graphics, they CAN adjust them. That doesn't say anything about whether they will actually do so, but it DOES influence buying decision.

You seem to be asserting what appear to be BOTH mutually exclusive and contradictory theories at the same time.

 

 

Nope. You are merely confused about the actual statement and how buying decisions are made.

“No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation. ”

Never state or implied anything about relieving anyone of any duties whatsoever. Never stated nor implied the mod organizer didn't exist. Why would ensuring compatibility “not cut it”? Cut what? I agree that someone purchasing a defective product should get their money back… now who were you replying too in this section… perhaps we should find them?

 

 

Perhaps you should, for once, READ what you reply to instead of setting up strawmen?

 

I wrote "providing compatibility for other popular mods doesn't cut it", which led you to ask "Why would ensuring compatibility "not cut it"?" The point is the fact that compatibility for other popular mods is not sufficient. Either it works, period, or it doesn't - in which case the mod creator might be given a chance to help the buyer get it to work (which is a logistical nightmare probably no modder can truly fulfil) but failing that, have to refund the buyer.

 

As was pointed out in a Forbes article on the issue, mods are by nature experimental. The permutations of different mod environments at an end user are so vast that it's impossible to provide any guarantees as to whether a mod will work.

 

 

How is stating "People shouldn't sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so. " “wishful thinking”? It was a statement of advice, and legal responsibility, not expectation.

 

 

It's wishful thinking because it will never happen, and as such makes your whole notion of practicality void. The reason we have this whole discussion is that a lof of mod creators are great at creating things, but not precisely the best entrepreneurs.

 

Nobody was discouraged. The contract was open for all to read and the Valve representative explicitly stated that his comment was not legal advice. This could easily be construed as implying the exact opposite of discouraging, but instead actively encouraging legal counsel.

 

 

Hardly, when they ask modders to not discuss the issue with anyone.

 

So… a fraction of 14%, or apparently an even smaller fraction of 8%, does not support the premise that only a small portion of Skyrims sales are due to modding? How small of a percentage would you think indicate a small percentage? Considering Bethesda could have eliminated the entire PC market for Skyrim and it still would have been a success.

 

 

Which would still change nothing about the fact that Skyrim is built on the shoulders of predecessors which influence buying decisions.

 

What are you going on about? "It doesn't exist in a void" utterly true and completely banal. So what? "TESI but TESV"? Who are you responding to?

 

 

You and your lack of understanding of the concept of brand expectations.

 

Look it would be great if you actually responded to things I've actually written and arguments I've actually made instead of whoever, or whatever, it is you are going on about. Could you do that for me? Umkay? That would be great. (sips coffee)

 

Of course. I'm sorry I forgot it's your prerogative to make up complete nonsense and misrepresent what you copy/pasted just before just for the sake of having something to argue against.

bullpcp wrote: Ohkay... lets try again.

I stated

"Trigger warning: This post is about perspective and relative importance. This may caused those with over-inflated senses of self importance to feel fear, anxiety, rage, or other negative emotions and lash out uncontrollably at those that have triggered them.

I love mods and i know it is easy to lose perspective being part of a modding community but the reality is... the modding community is simply not that important to the success of Bethesda's games or their bottom line.

According to Bethesda only about 8% of Skyrim players have ever used even a single mod and that less than 1% have ever created one. Given that the majority of those that have used mods would still have purchased and played Skyrim without mods this leaves well less than 4% of their sales in some way dependent on the modding community.

For the fraction of the 8% of mod users against paid for mods, and would never pay for mods if available, you aren't even potential customers and aren't terribly relevant to Bethesda's business decisions. Bethesda decisions about paid for mods also have to take into account the other 92%+ of Skyrim players that have never used a mod and to the other fraction of 8% that that are potential customers of paid for mods. Together they comprise well over 92% of their customers.

The VAST majority of Bethesda's customers are not part of the modding community. This community, both for and against paid for modding, is a very small minority of Skyrim players.

Some here have completely lost perspective on their relative importance to the success of Bethesda. Some have claimed, against all evidence, that Bethesda's success is somehow dependent upon mods and modding in general. This does not empirically seem to be the case.

Even if all who oppose paid for mods boycotted Bethesda they would see, at most, a few percent drop in sales of their game. A drop that may very well be more than made up for with increases in revenue from mods and those that may very well purchase their game due to the ease of use and easy availability of paid for mods."

Then YOU responded with.

"That's not how these things work, alas. Your fractions do not represent how buying decisions are made."

You didn't define what "these things" were... alas. I never stated that the fraction represent how buying decisions are made. Your lack of specificity make it difficult to interpret what you mean and respond in a constructive manner.

Please be aware that I ONLY mentioned Skyrim and the relative contributions of the 8% of mod users to Skyrim's units of sales and Bethesda's bottom line. Any mention of anything outside of these parameters and what I have specifically stated has NOTHING to do with any of my points even if it is super important. Do other things matter? Of course. But pogo sticking around like a madman does not make for constructive dialog.

Please don't ASSUME but FEEL free to ASK and I will try to do the same. I feel no sense of obligation, and I don't expect you to, to respond to responses on assumed writings I never wrote, assumed ideas I don't hold, or assumed opinions I don't agree with.

If I write "fire is hot" and you respond with the logical equivalent of "No it's not, water is wet." I will try to politely as possible point out that you aren't responding to anything I wrote and simply move on, and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

"What matters is the anticipated value of a game vs. the price asked. As such, someone as much as considering the use of mods - whether they end up using one or not - will attribute a greater value to the game and as such be willing to pay more."

I'm interpreting this to mean that those that use and value mods will value games that allow mods more than those that don't. I agree. I would ASSUME that those who specifically value the game for it's mods, and pay a premium for this feature, would probably use mods.

There also exist individuals that purchased Skyrim without the intent of ever using mods, or that even have knowledge of mod existence, that later utilize mods. I am one of these individuals. I personally know of several other purchasers of this category. I can only speculate as to how much of the 8% of mod users never originally intended to use mods and therefore did not value the game at a premium because of Skyrim mods.

The only way that this would be relevant to the 8% mod user statistic would be if there were more mod users that valued the game specifically for the mods but did't use mods than there were individuals that didn't value Skyrim for mods but did use them.

"That also means they will buy earlier, when the price is still higher."

I interpret this to mean that mod users disproportionately purchase Skyrim earlier and pay a premium. The implication would be that even though only 8% of Skyrim users use mods that they contribute disproportionately to the profit of the game as they pay a premium earlier in Skyrims release. If this assumption where true this would probably be correct.

"Mods also contribute to the longevity of the game, postponing the end of the product life cycle. To get such an effect would normally involve COSTS for Bethesda. Thus, they profit from prolonged attractiveness of the game, at a time when it has long recovered the production costs, without having to invest further."

I agree that mods contribute to the longevity of the game. You mention postponing the product life cycle from Bethesda's point of view they only care about the revenue phase of the product life cycle. If you are referring to how mods contribute to this continued revenue stream you are stating that mod users are purchasing Skryim latter in the productions cycle for less money. If modders contribute disproportionately to latter revenue streams they can not disproportionately also contribute to earlier revenue streams. These are mutually exclusive.

There are one of three possibilities, early purchase, late purchase, or that mods users have the same time preference as normal Skyrim purchasers and don't contribute disproportionately to any time revenue stream. My ASSUMPTION is that the early adopters and the later adopters somewhat cancel out and that you are left with a marginal, if not statistically insignificant, difference in time preference for Skyrim mod users purchasing habits.

"So, talking about a reduction in sales as a pure percentage is missing the point - a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits. A 4% loss in sales that manifests itself in week 1 has a much more serious effect on profits than an overall 4% loss that's distributed over the entire lifetime of a game."

Missing what point? Since I never stated nor implied that unit sales throughout time had equal value, and that I don't believe that, I'm unsure of what point I'm missing. You could have stated that other factors would contribute to profit. And I would have agreed.

You state that "a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits" this is a gross exaggeration. I agree that earlier more profitable sales contribute disproportionately to profit but again you stated that decreases in sales "say nothing". Surely you can admit what a gross exaggeration such a statement is.

FCF1/(1+WACC)^1+...+FCFT/(1+WACC)^T for any value of FCF>0, over any reasonable range of values of T the values of FCF "say something" and sense FCF one of the primary factors in determining is unit sales, unit sales matter.

Please note that at no time did I state that timing of FCF did not matter. I only stated that it would take an extremely different mod user time preference for the differences to be of significance. For instance all early purchasers or all late purchasers would be significant.

"Lastly, I'm not sure what makes you believe that paid mods will have a greater ease of use. They will have the very same compatibility problems as every other mod out there. They are also far less easy to use than alternatives, with Steam caring little for load order and dependencies."

This is were I explicitly state that I'm GUESSING or SPECULATING with the following in explicit reference to why paid mods would THEORETICALLY have greater ease of use.

With fewer mods of higher quality it would behoove those who make them to make them compatible. This could also result in purposely incompatible mods but then again that would almost certainly be illegal.

My ASSUMPTION would be that if millions of dollars were to be had with paid mods that the mod utilities would probably improve. I could be completely wrong as this is all pure speculation about mod compatibility.

I have not stated nor implied anything outside of this very specific topic on paid for mods.

"They will also have a mod creator behind them who has no idea about the legal obligations they are under, nor has the logistics at their disposal to meet them..."

I clearly state that it is not a good idea to get into legally binding obligations without having a clear idea of what you are getting into. This applies to all parties involved including, mod creators, mod purchasers, Bethesda, and Valve both in the Untied States and Abroad. People should also be aware of support systems available to them. When you sell paid for mods you don't get to do it half way or partially. You are legally obligated and committed as soon as you sign the contract and money gets involved. If you are not sufficiently knowledgeable on contracts you should obtain legal council. Paid for mods would be for real and for serious. Having written all of that I'm only referring to individuals and legal entities doing their due diligence and the logistics at their disposal. I'm not referring to or somehow implying anything outside of this.

"Of course. I'm sorry I forgot it's your prerogative to make up complete nonsense and misrepresent what you copy/pasted just before just for the sake of having something to argue against."

I laughed sooo very hard at this because this is EXACTLY how I view what YOU are doing. I was actually thinking you must be trolling me. I interpret what you are doing as pogo sticking from topic to topic without addressing anything I stated or admitting any fault or validity of any other viewpoint, while simultaneously strawmaning my arguments when you even bother to reference them, and using a plethora of weasel words in order to claim both up and down while claiming you are correct because I just don't understand.

Skyrim's financial success is not currently dependent on modding given that only 14% of their sales are on PC, 8% of users have ever used mods, and I would ASSUME that an even smaller portion of the 8% would not have bought Skyrim without modding capability.

I know that you disagree because reasons... because modding. (now that IS a strawman)

I will not be reading or responding to anymore of your posts on this topic. Of course you probably feel I haven't even started responding.

Have a good one. Peace. ;) Edited May 5, 2015 by bullpcp

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24958844.

aegiltheugly wrote: It's good to see this issue has reached the dissecting every sentence, you said/I said phase of the discussion. Always a sign that something beneficial is about to be accomplished.

"It's good to see this issue has reached the dissecting every sentence, you said/I said phase of the discussion."

Good.

"Always a sign that something beneficial is about to be accomplished."

Point.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24954644.

pgir001 wrote: 1st, I'm not a published modder. Aside from a few endorsements, I've not really contributed to this community. I recognize and acknowledge this. I will rectify that though. I have made a few edits and tweaks to the game and other's mods for my own use, but I have yet to create something I find has enough value to post here.

That said, I've done some soul searching and have some very mixed feelings on this whole issue. Especially around the whole moral and ethical issue of who's work is it really? Putting that aside, there are some mods that have truly enhanced my Skyrim experience. If those authors are requesting an opportunity to receive money for their work, then I feel I should give it. I have decided that I will donate to certain authors who's mods I have determined I cannot play without. But this leaves me with 2 questions about "Paid for Mods".

1. How will this impact my overall Skyrim experience?
Meaning, I play with a couple hundred mods. No individual mod accounts for my experience. To that end, if I had to pay a-la-cart for them or even a fraction of them, to maintain my Skyrim experience would become terribly expensive. While I am ready willing and able to pay for the use of mods, I simply could not afford to have played Skyrim to the extent I have up to now based on what Valve had set up if that ended up being how this whole thing went. This has nothing to do with what the authors deserve. I'd have simply stopped playing a long time ago, once the cost of the mods exceeded the value that playing Skyrim brought to me. I would tend to believe that I am not alone in this. So where does that leave the authors? Would "paid for Mods" create their own self limiting choke hold?

2. What kind of system could I reasonably contribute into, that would actually serve to promote better mods by rewarding the authors and yet not limiting the users by significantly increasing the cost to use many mods at a time?

Much respect and kudos to you for contributing what you can in the best way you are able.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24949999. #24951589, #24955079, #24955234, #24964064, #24964209 are all replies on the same post.

OH72 wrote:

 

In response to post #24947964.

"That's not how these things work, alas. Your fractions do not represent how buying decisions are made."

I never said nor implied they were. I was writing about the ramification from Bethesda's perspective.

 

Which you didn't describe correctly

 

 

 

 

I could just as easily state that many that end up using mods did not anticipate mod use and therefore valued the unit for less initially. This means for this factor to have an effect on the stated 8% the number of those intending to use mods, and who therefore ascribed greater value to the unit, would have to substantially outnumber those that never intended to use mods, and who therefore ascribed a lower value to the product. This is of course purely speculative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a very credible argument, as the availability of mods is a key part of the TES brand.

 

 

I never argued that mod use did not contribute to sales or the longevity of the game. I only argued that it empirically, demonstrably, qualitatively modding didn't contribute enough to warrant the claims by some that modding is the raison d'etre for Skyrim's success. Also the creation of the mod kit added additional upfront costs, though not necessarily substantial.

 

 

But the latter is the point: ANY effort towards life cycle extension adds costs. The creation of the mod kit is about as cheap as life cycle extension can come - compared with the supply of comparable content by Bethesda, and especially the opportunity cost of working on Skyrim content rather than FO4 or TESVI content, the mod kit is negligible in cost.

 

You are exaggerating by saying it has nothing to do with lost profits. You could quantitatively ascertain the WACC Bethesda used and then determine the net present value of their free income stream with respect to time preference but the basis of this calculation is the initial cash flow. Generally speaking FCF/(1+WACC)^T, or similar NPV equations or FV equations, over the relatively short existence of Skyrims life would hardly warrant the assertion of "says nothing". Though I'm not disagreeing that it would have SOME effect.

 

 

I never said it has nothing to do with lost profits. I said it says nothing about lost profits, it allows no real conclusion to be drawn.

 

But you are making a fundamental mistake here, though I know it's one that's quite common. You are using averages for grossly asymmetrical distributions - that's not a valid use of statistics. It makes a significant difference whether you lose 4% of sales at a time when the price is $70 or whether you lose them over the whole lifespan when for the vast majority of that lifespan, the price is is dramatically below $70.

 

You assertion would also have to strongly positively correlate early purchase with mod usage instead of the alternate possibility of mod users purchases being distributed across time without preference.

 

 

Since sales in general are not distributed across time without preference, it is unreasonable to assume that would be different for mod users.

You are of course assuming most of the modding parameters would remain the same. I can only speculate but I would assume a fewer number of more comprehensive mods with greater in built compatibility for other popular mods would sell. I can only speculate but assume mod organization utilities would be created if modding generated millions in revenue.

 

 

No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation.

 

People shouldn’t sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so.

 

That's wishful thinking. Not only did Valve not only point out to people what they were getting themselves into, they discouraged them implicitly from educating themselves. But that's not even the end of it, because Valve themselves are notoriously ignorant of legal obligations outside the US.

 

The evidence that this premise is based upon is fairly abundant. Sales data alone, with the assumption of statistically insignificant utilization of non pc platform modding, would indicate an upper limit on mod utilization of 14%. Their assertion of 8% does not seem unreasonable.

 

 

Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't support your premise, as it ignores the issue of branding and the influence branding has on sales.

 

I’m simply pointing out the relative unimportant of modding to the success of Skyrim. Not that it didn’t help. Only that people shouldn't exaggerate how much. Without extreme speculation and assumptions there is simply little reason to believe that modder, modding, the community, ect. had any more than marginal contributions to the commercial success of Skyrim.

 

 

Neither extreme speculations nor assumptions, just the understanding that Skyrim doesn't exist in a void and is not TESI but TESV.

bullpcp wrote: “Which you didn't describe correctly”

You assert that I didn't describe correctly, without stating exactly what I didn't describe correctly. If you are referring to the fact that I was writing about Bethesda it is specifically and explicitly stated in the first paragraph.

If you mean you disagree with my conclusions... no kidding.

“Not a very credible argument, as the availability of mods is a key part of the TES brand.”

You assert unequivocally that mods are a key part of the TES brand without addressing any of the statistical data to the contrary. Only 8% of Skyrim players use mods. Ostensibly fewer would be affected by their absence. I guess your opinions and assertions my be good enough for others but as for myself... citation needed.

“But the latter is the point: ANY effort towards life cycle extension adds costs. The creation of the mod kit is about as cheap as life cycle extension can come - compared with the supply of comparable content by Bethesda, and especially the opportunity cost of working on Skyrim content rather than FO4 or TESVI content, the mod kit is negligible in cost.”

You assert that the mod kit added to the longevity of the game which I explicitly stated that I didn't disagree with. Which I later explicitly stated as my own opinion. I also explicitly stated that the cost of creation kit was minimal. Thank you for agreeing with me. Who are you arguing this point against?

“I never said it has nothing to do with lost profits. I said it says nothing about lost profits, it allows no real conclusion to be drawn.”

Please indicate the difference between "has nothing" and "says nothing" and where you wrote"no real conclusions to be drawn". You quite literally wrote, with context so no possibility of taking it out of context.

"So, talking about a reduction in sales as a pure percentage is missing the point - a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits. A 4% loss in sales that manifests itself in week 1 has a much more serious effect on profits than an overall 4% loss that's distributed over the entire lifetime of a game."

Again you quite literally wrote that "a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits." I stated this was an exaggeration, implying it was true is moderation. I assume asymmetry of FCF distribution and then I expressly stated that time preference asymmetry would have some effect on profit.

I had problems with the assumptions that a disproportionate number of mods users are disproportionately responsible for BOTH early sales, and therefore greater up front profits, AND responsible for longevity of cash flows over time. Pick one.

“Since sales in general are not distributed across time without preference, it is unreasonable to assume that would be different for mod users. “

EXACTLY. That is my point. I have been stating this throughout your entire comment.

You can’t have mod users take credit for a disproportionate percent, more than 8%, of earlier sales without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm and they are less responsible for later sales, longevity.

You also can’t say mod users add disproportionately, more than 8%, to the longevity of a games profitable life cycle, a disproportionate portion of latter sales, without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm, and contribute less up front sales and profitability.

You seem to be asserting what appear to be BOTH mutually exclusive and contradictory theories at the same time.

If mod users disproportionately purchase units earlier, and disproportionately fewer units later they contribute more than their percentage would indicate to profits, but less than their percentage would indicate towards longevity or later cash flows. If mod users contribute to disproportionately to longevity, later cash flows, they have to have contributed disproportionately less to earlier cash flows and therefore less to profits than their percent of the market would indicate. Again, pick one or neither.

“No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation. ”

Never state or implied anything about relieving anyone of any duties whatsoever. Never stated nor implied the mod organizer didn't exist. Why would ensuring compatibility “not cut it”? Cut what? I agree that someone purchasing a defective product should get their money back… now who were you replying too in this section… perhaps we should find them?

“That's wishful thinking. Not only did Valve not only point out to people what they were getting themselves into, they discouraged them implicitly from educating themselves. But that's not even the end of it, because Valve themselves are notoriously ignorant of legal obligations outside the US.”

How is stating "People shouldn't sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so. " “wishful thinking”? It was a statement of advice, and legal responsibility, not expectation.

Nobody was discouraged. The contract was open for all to read and the Valve representative explicitly stated that his comment was not legal advice. This could easily be construed as implying the exact opposite of discouraging, but instead actively encouraging legal counsel.

“Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't support your premise, as it ignores the issue of branding and the influence branding has on sales.”

So… a fraction of 14%, or apparently an even smaller fraction of 8%, does not support the premise that only a small portion of Skyrims sales are due to modding? How small of a percentage would you think indicate a small percentage? Considering Bethesda could have eliminated the entire PC market for Skyrim and it still would have been a success.

How exactly does explicitly stating SALES figures somehow ignore “issures of branding and the influence branding has on SALES”? You do understand that influences on sales are inherently included in SALES statistic. Unless somehow the influence of modding influenced the other 86% of the none PC market and the other 6% of the none mod using PC market.

“Neither extreme speculations nor assumptions, just the understanding that Skyrim doesn't exist in a void and is not TESI but TESV.”

What are you going on about? "It doesn't exist in a void" utterly true and completely banal. So what? "TESI but TESV"? Who are you responding to?

Look it would be great if you actually responded to things I've actually written and arguments I've actually made instead of whoever, or whatever, it is you are going on about. Could you do that for me? Umkay? That would be great. (sips coffee)

Peace. :)

bullpcp wrote: Look with all due respect, I would like to have a respectful conversation online but feel like we are writing at each other instead of with each other.

I feel like I'm writing the equivalent of "fire is hot" and your are responding with "No water is wet".

If I came off as snarky I do apologize. I'm a bit of a recovering smart ass.

Peace. :D

Tyerial12 wrote: LOL mods are not KEY to skyrim when will people get this... Skyrim can be played mod free.. my bro and i sometimes do it on weekends..Mods do not make Skyrim they help enjoy them but are not key

Hookko wrote: on 1 January 1970 1:00:00, said: =x

Vesuvius1745 wrote: For me, mods are key. After playing with mods, I could never go back to Vanilla Skyrim. For one thing, it looks like Minecraft in comparison. I suspect the only reason people can play Skyrim on the console is because they've never tried it on a PC with mods. If all you've ever eaten were hamburgers, you don't know what you are missing out on with the Prime Rib dinner.

Vesuvius1745

I agree that I couldn't go back now. I did however start the game without mods, so did much of family, and friends. In our ignorance we were not just happy but ecstatic.

I'm the one that went whole hog wild for mods and eventually got them involved.

Some may be surprised how many PC users don't use mods. The Steam forums are full of threads devoted to this very topic. It's easy to forget that what this community has come to expect due to modding is not the norm.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24942159. #24942244, #24942979, #24943319, #24944114, #24944129, #24944354, #24945849, #24950174, #24952229 are all replies on the same post.

bullpcp wrote: Trigger warning: This post is about perspective and relative importance. This may caused those with over-inflated senses of self importance to feel fear, anxiety, rage, or other negative emotions and lash out uncontrollably at those that have triggered them.

I love mods and i know it is easy to lose perspective being part of a modding community but the reality is... the modding community is simply not that important to the success of Bethesda's games or their bottom line.

According to Bethesda only about 8% of Skyrim players have ever used even a single mod and that less than 1% have ever created one. Given that the majority of those that have used mods would still have purchased and played Skyrim without mods this leaves well less than 4% of their sales in some way dependent on the modding community.

For the fraction of the 8% of mod users against paid for mods, and would never pay for mods if available, you aren't even potential customers and aren't terribly relevant to Bethesda's business decisions. Bethesda decisions about paid for mods also have to take into account the other 92%+ of Skyrim players that have never used a mod and to the other fraction of 8% that that are potential customers of paid for mods. Together they comprise well over 92% of their customers.

The VAST majority of Bethesda's customers are not part of the modding community. This community, both for and against paid for modding, is a very small minority of Skyrim players.

Some here have completely lost perspective on their relative importance to the success of Bethesda. Some have claimed, against all evidence, that Bethesda's success is somehow dependent upon mods and modding in general. This does not empirically seem to be the case.

Even if all who oppose paid for mods boycotted Bethesda they would see, at most, a few percent drop in sales of their game. A drop that may very well be more than made up for with increases in revenue from mods and those that may very well purchase their game due to the ease of use and easy availability of paid for mods.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: And where is Bethesda getting the info that only 8% of people have ever used a mod? How would they know that? Even if they are counting console users with that equation (many of whom ended up buying Skyrim on the PC as well), I find that percentage hard to believe. Are they just going by Steam data? Just looking at the tens of millions of unique downloads on this site alone makes me think the same pencil pusher who came up with that figure is probably the same one who made the Hiroshima-style miscalculation with this pay-for rollout. They need to fire the individual(s) responsible for this abortion of creativity, and because they can't do math.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 Triggered! Just kidding.

Total Skyrim units sold 23,270,000

Skryim Sales By Platform
XBox 360 59 %
Playstation 3 27 %
PC 14 %

http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/

"Only 8% of the Skyrim audience has ever used a mod. Less than 1% has ever made one."
http://www.bethblog.com/2015/04/27/why-were-trying-paid-skyrim-mods-on-steam/

8% of 23,270,000 would be 1,861,600 units using mods. The highest number of unique downloads is 7,384,353 for Skyrim HD - 2K Textures. I'm not sure how this was calculated but none of these numbers seem to contradict the Blog posts assertions.

I'm assuming they researched the topic. Your assertion seems to be that a multibillion dollar international company, in support of a multibillion dollar franchise, that specifically creates modding tools for the modding community, that has spent years planning on monetizing those mods, and that potentially had many millions of dollars at stake, doesn't know how many people use and create mods because some "pencil pusher" made a statistical error. I think I'll go with Bethesda's statistics.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: "Your assertion seems to be that a multibillion dollar international company, in support of a multibillion dollar franchise, that specifically creates modding tools for the modding community, that has spent years planning on monetizing those mods, and that potentially had many millions of dollars at stake, doesn't know how many people use and create mods because some "pencil pusher" made a statistical error."

You've obviously never worked in the industry. I am an Electronic Arts vet (5 years, Redwood Shores California), and the number of stupid mistakes I saw from people who were paid a lot of money to know better was astounding. But yeah, feel free to believe anything they tell you without question. For me, and presumably others, we require a bit more evidence. And just from a cursory glance, I find their statistics suspect.

bullpcp wrote: You don't have to convince me about how incompetent people can be. But since only 14% of all units sold are PC units, and almost all mods are created for PCs, this would necessarily indicate that a very small minority of their sales are dependent upon mods, modders, or modding community.

Even if 100% of the PC units sold used mods and 100% of those that used mods would not have purchased the unit without mods this would still only comprise 14% of their total sales.

Given that much less than 100% of PC units sold used mods, and far less than 100% of those that used mods would not have otherwise have purchased the product without mods, this would indicate that only a fraction of the 14% PC market are dependent upon the modding community.

These facts would necessarily indicate a possible range of 0%-14% of their sales are dependent on PC purchases and mod usage. My GUESS would be that a only a minority of their PC sales where dependent upon mod usage and that the reality of mod dependence would be at the bottom of the 0%-14% range.

This would indicate that the VAST majority of Skyrim users have never used a mod and that the vast majority of their sales are not dependent on modding. Given that they could have completely eliminated the PC market all together and Skyirm still would have been considered a huge commercial success. Please indicate how given the statistics available that Skyrims success would be dependent upon mods, modders, and the modding community. What combination of conditions, within the given statistical constraints, would indicate Skyrims success is dependent on modding?

I don't see how my interpretation of the data is dependent on Bethesda's accretions of modding statistics. I'm not writing this to diminish the community but to give it perspective. This is a tempest in a teacup. Again, I love mods but I have no illusions that Bethesda needs them to succeed.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I also wanted to add that I think you're a smart guy, and although I haven't agreed with your opinions in previous posts, I respect your viewpoint. Now those statistics very well may be correct, but in this instance I think you are just a little too eager to believe what they are telling you without question. I am no expert, but just going by the limited information I have access to I find that 8% figure suspect. That is why I'd be interested in knowing exactly how they came up with it. Since it's the premise for your whole point, I think it's an important detail.

bullpcp wrote: I appreciate the complement. Everyone is as smart as they are, no more no less. Thank you for communicating with respect and without vitriol.

My premise is that only a minority of Skyrim's, and Bethesda's, sales are due to mods, modding, and the modding community and my conclusion would be that mods, modding, and the modding community are of only marginal importance to the success of Skyrim and Bethesda.

The evidence that this premise is based upon is fairly abundant. My post on platform sales data alone, with the assumption of statistically insignificant utilization of non pc platform modding, would indicate an upper limit on mod utilization of 14%. Their assertion of 8% does not seem unreasonable.

My GUESS would be that only 1%-2% or so of their total sales are dependent on modding. Under previous assumptions and constraints PC mod use may be assumed to be around 8%/14% or 57%+. Peace.

bullpcp wrote: EA very nice, much respect.

retnav98 wrote: So it doesn't phase you that the 1.8 million users of mods...each downloaded Skyrim HD 2k textures...roughly 4 times?

I would find that hard to believe if the number was 3.6 million(2x).

Ghatto wrote: Man this is so off-base it's not funny. So what if somehow we knew that only "8% of buyers used mods" it means nothing and has absolutely nothing to do with the system for paying for mods.

Abosultely nothing.

There is no 'potential customers' in that 92% segment. If those in that group wanted to install mods AT ALL then they would not be in that 92%. There's no way that they haven't decided to mod simply because 'they want to pay money'. I mean that just sounds ridiculous.

In fact, I don't know why anybody wants that 92% to just take up modding for apparently extraneous reasons. I'm not saying that I want them to keep out of the community: I'm saying their introduction to modding shouldn't be some hyped up rapid shopping frenzy brought on by the likes of the Workshop/Bethesda/Valve. Other games would probably manage but the with likes of Skyrim these 'customers' will get themselves hurt - games will crash, saves will corrupt, buyers remorse will be heavy.

The very thing that's so sweet about the community of the Nexus here isn't just the lively modding scene that pumps out awesome free mods, it's the robust userbase that works together tirelessly to make sure these mods even function in fragile waif of an engine like Gamebryo. They get the best experiences when, without any money down, can try some mods, get some help/find verbose instructions on using them, and discuss getting it to work with others who a quite simply always in the same boat as them.

Ghatto
Bethesda the instigator of the system disagrees. It was one of the reasons they proposed the paid system to begin with.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24949999. #24951589, #24955079, #24955234, #24964064, #24964209, #24964824 are all replies on the same post.

OH72 wrote:

 

In response to post #24947964.

"That's not how these things work, alas. Your fractions do not represent how buying decisions are made."

I never said nor implied they were. I was writing about the ramification from Bethesda's perspective.

 

Which you didn't describe correctly

 

 

 

 

I could just as easily state that many that end up using mods did not anticipate mod use and therefore valued the unit for less initially. This means for this factor to have an effect on the stated 8% the number of those intending to use mods, and who therefore ascribed greater value to the unit, would have to substantially outnumber those that never intended to use mods, and who therefore ascribed a lower value to the product. This is of course purely speculative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a very credible argument, as the availability of mods is a key part of the TES brand.

 

 

I never argued that mod use did not contribute to sales or the longevity of the game. I only argued that it empirically, demonstrably, qualitatively modding didn't contribute enough to warrant the claims by some that modding is the raison d'etre for Skyrim's success. Also the creation of the mod kit added additional upfront costs, though not necessarily substantial.

 

 

But the latter is the point: ANY effort towards life cycle extension adds costs. The creation of the mod kit is about as cheap as life cycle extension can come - compared with the supply of comparable content by Bethesda, and especially the opportunity cost of working on Skyrim content rather than FO4 or TESVI content, the mod kit is negligible in cost.

 

You are exaggerating by saying it has nothing to do with lost profits. You could quantitatively ascertain the WACC Bethesda used and then determine the net present value of their free income stream with respect to time preference but the basis of this calculation is the initial cash flow. Generally speaking FCF/(1+WACC)^T, or similar NPV equations or FV equations, over the relatively short existence of Skyrims life would hardly warrant the assertion of "says nothing". Though I'm not disagreeing that it would have SOME effect.

 

 

I never said it has nothing to do with lost profits. I said it says nothing about lost profits, it allows no real conclusion to be drawn.

 

But you are making a fundamental mistake here, though I know it's one that's quite common. You are using averages for grossly asymmetrical distributions - that's not a valid use of statistics. It makes a significant difference whether you lose 4% of sales at a time when the price is $70 or whether you lose them over the whole lifespan when for the vast majority of that lifespan, the price is is dramatically below $70.

 

You assertion would also have to strongly positively correlate early purchase with mod usage instead of the alternate possibility of mod users purchases being distributed across time without preference.

 

 

Since sales in general are not distributed across time without preference, it is unreasonable to assume that would be different for mod users.

You are of course assuming most of the modding parameters would remain the same. I can only speculate but I would assume a fewer number of more comprehensive mods with greater in built compatibility for other popular mods would sell. I can only speculate but assume mod organization utilities would be created if modding generated millions in revenue.

 

 

No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation.

 

People shouldn’t sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so.

 

That's wishful thinking. Not only did Valve not only point out to people what they were getting themselves into, they discouraged them implicitly from educating themselves. But that's not even the end of it, because Valve themselves are notoriously ignorant of legal obligations outside the US.

 

The evidence that this premise is based upon is fairly abundant. Sales data alone, with the assumption of statistically insignificant utilization of non pc platform modding, would indicate an upper limit on mod utilization of 14%. Their assertion of 8% does not seem unreasonable.

 

 

Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't support your premise, as it ignores the issue of branding and the influence branding has on sales.

 

I’m simply pointing out the relative unimportant of modding to the success of Skyrim. Not that it didn’t help. Only that people shouldn't exaggerate how much. Without extreme speculation and assumptions there is simply little reason to believe that modder, modding, the community, ect. had any more than marginal contributions to the commercial success of Skyrim.

 

 

Neither extreme speculations nor assumptions, just the understanding that Skyrim doesn't exist in a void and is not TESI but TESV.

bullpcp wrote: “Which you didn't describe correctly”

You assert that I didn't describe correctly, without stating exactly what I didn't describe correctly. If you are referring to the fact that I was writing about Bethesda it is specifically and explicitly stated in the first paragraph.

If you mean you disagree with my conclusions... no kidding.

“Not a very credible argument, as the availability of mods is a key part of the TES brand.”

You assert unequivocally that mods are a key part of the TES brand without addressing any of the statistical data to the contrary. Only 8% of Skyrim players use mods. Ostensibly fewer would be affected by their absence. I guess your opinions and assertions my be good enough for others but as for myself... citation needed.

“But the latter is the point: ANY effort towards life cycle extension adds costs. The creation of the mod kit is about as cheap as life cycle extension can come - compared with the supply of comparable content by Bethesda, and especially the opportunity cost of working on Skyrim content rather than FO4 or TESVI content, the mod kit is negligible in cost.”

You assert that the mod kit added to the longevity of the game which I explicitly stated that I didn't disagree with. Which I later explicitly stated as my own opinion. I also explicitly stated that the cost of creation kit was minimal. Thank you for agreeing with me. Who are you arguing this point against?

“I never said it has nothing to do with lost profits. I said it says nothing about lost profits, it allows no real conclusion to be drawn.”

Please indicate the difference between "has nothing" and "says nothing" and where you wrote"no real conclusions to be drawn". You quite literally wrote, with context so no possibility of taking it out of context.

"So, talking about a reduction in sales as a pure percentage is missing the point - a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits. A 4% loss in sales that manifests itself in week 1 has a much more serious effect on profits than an overall 4% loss that's distributed over the entire lifetime of a game."

Again you quite literally wrote that "a pure reduction in sales numbers says nothing about lost profits." I stated this was an exaggeration, implying it was true is moderation. I assume asymmetry of FCF distribution and then I expressly stated that time preference asymmetry would have some effect on profit.

I had problems with the assumptions that a disproportionate number of mods users are disproportionately responsible for BOTH early sales, and therefore greater up front profits, AND responsible for longevity of cash flows over time. Pick one.

“Since sales in general are not distributed across time without preference, it is unreasonable to assume that would be different for mod users. “

EXACTLY. That is my point. I have been stating this throughout your entire comment.

You can’t have mod users take credit for a disproportionate percent, more than 8%, of earlier sales without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm and they are less responsible for later sales, longevity.

You also can’t say mod users add disproportionately, more than 8%, to the longevity of a games profitable life cycle, a disproportionate portion of latter sales, without assuming their purchasing patterns ARE DIFFERENT from the norm, and contribute less up front sales and profitability.

You seem to be asserting what appear to be BOTH mutually exclusive and contradictory theories at the same time.

If mod users disproportionately purchase units earlier, and disproportionately fewer units later they contribute more than their percentage would indicate to profits, but less than their percentage would indicate towards longevity or later cash flows. If mod users contribute to disproportionately to longevity, later cash flows, they have to have contributed disproportionately less to earlier cash flows and therefore less to profits than their percent of the market would indicate. Again, pick one or neither.

“No, you are assuming any of that relieves a mod creator from their duties - in fact, mod organization utilities already exist, and providing compatibility "for other popular mods" doesn't cut it. Someone who pays money for a mod has a right to have that mod working or get their money back under plenty of nations' consumer rights legislation. ”

Never state or implied anything about relieving anyone of any duties whatsoever. Never stated nor implied the mod organizer didn't exist. Why would ensuring compatibility “not cut it”? Cut what? I agree that someone purchasing a defective product should get their money back… now who were you replying too in this section… perhaps we should find them?

“That's wishful thinking. Not only did Valve not only point out to people what they were getting themselves into, they discouraged them implicitly from educating themselves. But that's not even the end of it, because Valve themselves are notoriously ignorant of legal obligations outside the US.”

How is stating "People shouldn't sell mods if they are unsure of the legal ramifications of doing so. " “wishful thinking”? It was a statement of advice, and legal responsibility, not expectation.

Nobody was discouraged. The contract was open for all to read and the Valve representative explicitly stated that his comment was not legal advice. This could easily be construed as implying the exact opposite of discouraging, but instead actively encouraging legal counsel.

“Unfortunately, that evidence doesn't support your premise, as it ignores the issue of branding and the influence branding has on sales.”

So… a fraction of 14%, or apparently an even smaller fraction of 8%, does not support the premise that only a small portion of Skyrims sales are due to modding? How small of a percentage would you think indicate a small percentage? Considering Bethesda could have eliminated the entire PC market for Skyrim and it still would have been a success.

How exactly does explicitly stating SALES figures somehow ignore “issures of branding and the influence branding has on SALES”? You do understand that influences on sales are inherently included in SALES statistic. Unless somehow the influence of modding influenced the other 86% of the none PC market and the other 6% of the none mod using PC market.

“Neither extreme speculations nor assumptions, just the understanding that Skyrim doesn't exist in a void and is not TESI but TESV.”

What are you going on about? "It doesn't exist in a void" utterly true and completely banal. So what? "TESI but TESV"? Who are you responding to?

Look it would be great if you actually responded to things I've actually written and arguments I've actually made instead of whoever, or whatever, it is you are going on about. Could you do that for me? Umkay? That would be great. (sips coffee)

Peace. :)

bullpcp wrote: Look with all due respect, I would like to have a respectful conversation online but feel like we are writing at each other instead of with each other.

I feel like I'm writing the equivalent of "fire is hot" and your are responding with "No water is wet".

If I came off as snarky I do apologize. I'm a bit of a recovering smart ass.

Peace. :D

Tyerial12 wrote: LOL mods are not KEY to skyrim when will people get this... Skyrim can be played mod free.. my bro and i sometimes do it on weekends..Mods do not make Skyrim they help enjoy them but are not key

Hookko wrote: on 1 January 1970 1:00:00, said: =x

Vesuvius1745 wrote: For me, mods are key. After playing with mods, I could never go back to Vanilla Skyrim. For one thing, it looks like Minecraft in comparison. I suspect the only reason people can play Skyrim on the console is because they've never tried it on a PC with mods. If all you've ever eaten were hamburgers, you don't know what you are missing out on with the Prime Rib dinner.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

I agree that I couldn't go back now. I did however start the game without mods, so did much of family, and friends. In our ignorance we were not just happy but ecstatic.

I'm the one that went whole hog wild for mods and eventually got them involved.

Some may be surprised how many PC users don't use mods. The Steam forums are full of threads devoted to this very topic. It's easy to forget that what this community has come to expect due to modding is not the norm.

Tyerial12
Point out that mods aren't that important to the VAST majority of all users and you may as well have kicked puppies, eaten kittens, and stolen candy from babies. People value things differently. \

I personally LOVE mods but I have no illusions that they are somehow necessary for most people or the key to Skyrim's success.

I would play Skryim without mods if I had to. Edited May 4, 2015 by bullpcp

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24942159. #24942244, #24942979, #24943319, #24944114, #24944129, #24944354, #24945849, #24950174, #24952229, #24964969 are all replies on the same post.

bullpcp wrote: Trigger warning: This post is about perspective and relative importance. This may caused those with over-inflated senses of self importance to feel fear, anxiety, rage, or other negative emotions and lash out uncontrollably at those that have triggered them.

I love mods and i know it is easy to lose perspective being part of a modding community but the reality is... the modding community is simply not that important to the success of Bethesda's games or their bottom line.

According to Bethesda only about 8% of Skyrim players have ever used even a single mod and that less than 1% have ever created one. Given that the majority of those that have used mods would still have purchased and played Skyrim without mods this leaves well less than 4% of their sales in some way dependent on the modding community.

For the fraction of the 8% of mod users against paid for mods, and would never pay for mods if available, you aren't even potential customers and aren't terribly relevant to Bethesda's business decisions. Bethesda decisions about paid for mods also have to take into account the other 92%+ of Skyrim players that have never used a mod and to the other fraction of 8% that that are potential customers of paid for mods. Together they comprise well over 92% of their customers.

The VAST majority of Bethesda's customers are not part of the modding community. This community, both for and against paid for modding, is a very small minority of Skyrim players.

Some here have completely lost perspective on their relative importance to the success of Bethesda. Some have claimed, against all evidence, that Bethesda's success is somehow dependent upon mods and modding in general. This does not empirically seem to be the case.

Even if all who oppose paid for mods boycotted Bethesda they would see, at most, a few percent drop in sales of their game. A drop that may very well be more than made up for with increases in revenue from mods and those that may very well purchase their game due to the ease of use and easy availability of paid for mods.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: And where is Bethesda getting the info that only 8% of people have ever used a mod? How would they know that? Even if they are counting console users with that equation (many of whom ended up buying Skyrim on the PC as well), I find that percentage hard to believe. Are they just going by Steam data? Just looking at the tens of millions of unique downloads on this site alone makes me think the same pencil pusher who came up with that figure is probably the same one who made the Hiroshima-style miscalculation with this pay-for rollout. They need to fire the individual(s) responsible for this abortion of creativity, and because they can't do math.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 Triggered! Just kidding.

Total Skyrim units sold 23,270,000

Skryim Sales By Platform
XBox 360 59 %
Playstation 3 27 %
PC 14 %

http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/

"Only 8% of the Skyrim audience has ever used a mod. Less than 1% has ever made one."
http://www.bethblog.com/2015/04/27/why-were-trying-paid-skyrim-mods-on-steam/

8% of 23,270,000 would be 1,861,600 units using mods. The highest number of unique downloads is 7,384,353 for Skyrim HD - 2K Textures. I'm not sure how this was calculated but none of these numbers seem to contradict the Blog posts assertions.

I'm assuming they researched the topic. Your assertion seems to be that a multibillion dollar international company, in support of a multibillion dollar franchise, that specifically creates modding tools for the modding community, that has spent years planning on monetizing those mods, and that potentially had many millions of dollars at stake, doesn't know how many people use and create mods because some "pencil pusher" made a statistical error. I think I'll go with Bethesda's statistics.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: "Your assertion seems to be that a multibillion dollar international company, in support of a multibillion dollar franchise, that specifically creates modding tools for the modding community, that has spent years planning on monetizing those mods, and that potentially had many millions of dollars at stake, doesn't know how many people use and create mods because some "pencil pusher" made a statistical error."

You've obviously never worked in the industry. I am an Electronic Arts vet (5 years, Redwood Shores California), and the number of stupid mistakes I saw from people who were paid a lot of money to know better was astounding. But yeah, feel free to believe anything they tell you without question. For me, and presumably others, we require a bit more evidence. And just from a cursory glance, I find their statistics suspect.

bullpcp wrote: You don't have to convince me about how incompetent people can be. But since only 14% of all units sold are PC units, and almost all mods are created for PCs, this would necessarily indicate that a very small minority of their sales are dependent upon mods, modders, or modding community.

Even if 100% of the PC units sold used mods and 100% of those that used mods would not have purchased the unit without mods this would still only comprise 14% of their total sales.

Given that much less than 100% of PC units sold used mods, and far less than 100% of those that used mods would not have otherwise have purchased the product without mods, this would indicate that only a fraction of the 14% PC market are dependent upon the modding community.

These facts would necessarily indicate a possible range of 0%-14% of their sales are dependent on PC purchases and mod usage. My GUESS would be that a only a minority of their PC sales where dependent upon mod usage and that the reality of mod dependence would be at the bottom of the 0%-14% range.

This would indicate that the VAST majority of Skyrim users have never used a mod and that the vast majority of their sales are not dependent on modding. Given that they could have completely eliminated the PC market all together and Skyirm still would have been considered a huge commercial success. Please indicate how given the statistics available that Skyrims success would be dependent upon mods, modders, and the modding community. What combination of conditions, within the given statistical constraints, would indicate Skyrims success is dependent on modding?

I don't see how my interpretation of the data is dependent on Bethesda's accretions of modding statistics. I'm not writing this to diminish the community but to give it perspective. This is a tempest in a teacup. Again, I love mods but I have no illusions that Bethesda needs them to succeed.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I also wanted to add that I think you're a smart guy, and although I haven't agreed with your opinions in previous posts, I respect your viewpoint. Now those statistics very well may be correct, but in this instance I think you are just a little too eager to believe what they are telling you without question. I am no expert, but just going by the limited information I have access to I find that 8% figure suspect. That is why I'd be interested in knowing exactly how they came up with it. Since it's the premise for your whole point, I think it's an important detail.

bullpcp wrote: I appreciate the complement. Everyone is as smart as they are, no more no less. Thank you for communicating with respect and without vitriol.

My premise is that only a minority of Skyrim's, and Bethesda's, sales are due to mods, modding, and the modding community and my conclusion would be that mods, modding, and the modding community are of only marginal importance to the success of Skyrim and Bethesda.

The evidence that this premise is based upon is fairly abundant. My post on platform sales data alone, with the assumption of statistically insignificant utilization of non pc platform modding, would indicate an upper limit on mod utilization of 14%. Their assertion of 8% does not seem unreasonable.

My GUESS would be that only 1%-2% or so of their total sales are dependent on modding. Under previous assumptions and constraints PC mod use may be assumed to be around 8%/14% or 57%+. Peace.

bullpcp wrote: EA very nice, much respect.

retnav98 wrote: So it doesn't phase you that the 1.8 million users of mods...each downloaded Skyrim HD 2k textures...roughly 4 times?

I would find that hard to believe if the number was 3.6 million(2x).

Ghatto wrote: Man this is so off-base it's not funny. So what if somehow we knew that only "8% of buyers used mods" it means nothing and has absolutely nothing to do with the system for paying for mods.

Abosultely nothing.

There is no 'potential customers' in that 92% segment. If those in that group wanted to install mods AT ALL then they would not be in that 92%. There's no way that they haven't decided to mod simply because 'they want to pay money'. I mean that just sounds ridiculous.

In fact, I don't know why anybody wants that 92% to just take up modding for apparently extraneous reasons. I'm not saying that I want them to keep out of the community: I'm saying their introduction to modding shouldn't be some hyped up rapid shopping frenzy brought on by the likes of the Workshop/Bethesda/Valve. Other games would probably manage but the with likes of Skyrim these 'customers' will get themselves hurt - games will crash, saves will corrupt, buyers remorse will be heavy.

The very thing that's so sweet about the community of the Nexus here isn't just the lively modding scene that pumps out awesome free mods, it's the robust userbase that works together tirelessly to make sure these mods even function in fragile waif of an engine like Gamebryo. They get the best experiences when, without any money down, can try some mods, get some help/find verbose instructions on using them, and discuss getting it to work with others who a quite simply always in the same boat as them.

bullpcp wrote: Ghatto
Bethesda the instigator of the system disagrees. It was one of the reasons they proposed the paid system to begin with.

retnav98
I've lost count of the number of times I've re installed Skyrim over the years, thinking I would have a chance to play it for once, so I'm unfortunately responsible for several of those downloads myself.