Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[retnav98]

In response to post #24965229. #24965294, #24965344, #24967219, #24968809, #24969484, #24976929 are all replies on the same post.

Harbringe wrote:

 

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.

 

 

Was it Bethesda that instigated this , that doesn't make sense to me , it would be Bethesda that would be getting the backlash in loss of direct sales of any future titles , while its Valve that has had to deal with the consequences of modding on their Steam platform . Would seem to be they would have a greater interest in seeing paid mods as they are the ones incurring the cost of having to manage them . Albeit as poorly as they do it still must be costing them something.

 

Also I have to call BS on something that people have been saying . This Skyrim PC sales account for only 14% of sales . That number was released 2 days after launch , the numbers were Xbox 360 59% , PS3 27% and PC 14% , thats exactly the same number they report for Skyrim sales almost 4 years after its release ,thats a statistical impossibility that they would remain exactly the same . Numbers always change over time . Plus its interesting to note that Valve will not publish digital PC sales of Skyrim on their Steam platform but will publish Xbox and Playstation . So dont be buying the 14% BS.

bullpcp wrote: Despite all that, it’s still too small in our eyes. 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/"

It's obviously a bit of a PR piece but it is the closest we have to what Bethesda's reasoning was, outside of rampant speculation all over the internet.

bullpcp wrote: I'm a goober but how do you do that cool in response to post ### thing. I wanna play clean like that.

DrakeTheDragon wrote: You're already doing the "in reply to post #..." thing yourself all the time just without you noticing.

These links up ahead is what people get to see when reading this topic on the forums side. It's an internal means to re-create the interconnection between posts in a reply chain like you can see on the file sites, while on the forums side you don't even have the option to "reply".

It is not intended to be visible on the file sites like it is now, but that's what happens when someone replies to a post in a reply chain from the forums side, as this will create a new post out of context and just "quote" the old one. Said quote makes these otherwise hidden links on top also visible on the file sites then.

(That's why I'm always exclusively replying to posts in a news topic from the file sites. 'Replying' to them from the forums side kills the structuring and the reply chains.)

bullpcp wrote: Harbringe

The sales stats come from the following website that cites Bethesda as their source. The stats were last updated April 12th, 2015.

Skyrim Sales Statistics Data
Skyrim units sold in the first 48 hours 3,500,000
Skyrim units sold in the first week release 7,000,000
Skyrim sales in the first week of release $450,000,000
Total Skyrim units sold 23,270,000
Total Skyrim sales revenue $1,390,000,000
Average user review rating 92 / 100
Highest number of concurrent players on Steam 320,000
Skryim Sales By Platform
XBox 360 59 %
Playstation 3 27 %
PC 14 %
Skyrim Load Times
Average XBox load time 48 seconds
Average Playstation 3 load time 34 seconds
Skyrim Development Statistics
Number of years it took to develope Skyrim 3.5 years
Skryim development and marketing budget $85 Million
Number of game developers employed 90
Number of actors employed for character voice overs 83
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is an action role-playing open world video game developed by Bethesda Game Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks. It is the fifth installment in The Elder Scrolls action role-playing video game series, following The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Skyrim was released on November 11, 2011 for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

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

If you disagree with these statistics PLEASE indicate why you disagree with them and direct me to a more accurate source. If I'm wrong I want to know.

People seem to be more willing to state their feelings on statistics rather than look up new statistics. We are on the internet.

aegiltheugly wrote: Can I wave my hand at you and say "these are the statistics you're looking for"?

RoboJasonMan wrote: I'm going to throw some alternative statistical estimates out there...
Based on news articles published in January 2014, Bethesda passed the 20 million unit milestone for sales on all platforms.
http://gamerant.com/skyrim-sells-20-million/
Unfortunately, the 14% estimate for PC sales comes from statistical estimates from within the first few days of launch. Since Valve doesn't publicly release their number of sales for games, we have to estimate it. Using web crawlers, the following estimated in April 2014 that Skyrim sold 5.94 million copies on PC: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/15/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/
Since the two figures were taken near the same time and since this was only a year ago, this seems like a reasonable current estimate. Doing some math, we get that PC sales account for 30% of Skyrim sales, not 14%.
Assuming that
http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/
is correct on Skyrim's total sales, we would then estimate that there are about 7 million PC sales. Since Skyrim HD alone has about 7.4 million unique downloads, it's reasonable to believe that almost all PC users are mod users.

@RoboJasonMan,

Thank You. Now that the more reasonable number is available, will the Novelists continue. Of course they will. Kinda like the Congressional hearings on Cigarettes, even when faced with the truth...some continued to toe the line.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074 are all replies on the same post.

janishewski wrote: Since some mod authors erase any comment they don't agree with I will state my argument for paid mods here. I am a chef and a restaurant owner. What does that have to do with this you ask? The analogy is that Valve would be my infrastructure. The things that allow my business to operate (utilities, the building housing my restaurant, parking, etc). Bethesda would be my food companies. They provide me with the resources and tools needed to produce my product. Then I, using these resources create and sell what I've produced. Anyone wanna guess what my average profit margin is after expenses. Yep, you guessed it, 25-30%. Around 30% is standard for the industry though obviously there are those that make more and those that make less. If someone told me I could make a guaranteed 25% profit for the rest of the time my business exists, I would take it in a heartbeat, and so would anyone else I've ever known in the industry. So lets stop pretending that it was the % that mod makers were getting that was the problem. Obviously those selling their mods and those that wanted to did not feel that way. Would a 35% been better, of course, but 25% was a perfectly acceptable place to start.
I work roughly 80-100 hours per week. If I were to let people come in and eat my food with nothing more than a "donation" option, how long do you think I would be motivated to continue to work and how long would a business like that last? The answer to both is "not one minute". If everyone that downloaded and endorsed a mod "donated" even 50 cents American to the modder, this would never be an issue. The truth that I have heard from modders is that, for some of the larger mods, it is less than 1% of endorsers that donate. So please stop with the donation nonsense. Hoping for donations does not pay the bills. What you rejected was the ability for talented people to build an entire industry around creating more content for great games. Nobody was forcing anything on anyone and free mods would still be all over the place as they were. What you took away was choice and as a result, the number, quality, and ambition of mods will take a hit and talented modders will move on to other projects or mod for games to do allow them compensation for their labor. This was a victory for nobody. It was also irrelevant as optional paid mods will return and they will return with Bethesda products. I guarantee that and I don't guarantee much. Anyway, I hope that this post offers a different way to look at the issue.

bullpcp wrote: People were essentially opposed to other consenting adults voluntarily interacting n a manner that they didn't agree with.

25% is actually much higher as a percentage return than many creators are able to get in many industries. I know that for instance authors often only get 5% for their works and that if you make the financial comparison the return on assets is often only around 8%.

Of course the only relevant opinions on the matter of just compensation and cost are between those selling and those purchasing goods and services.

retnav98 wrote: People talk about the costs to host mods as a reasonable justification for taking 75% of the profit... But they are/were taking None of the LIABILITY. As well, they are hosting Free mods of Arguably BETTER Quality and incurring the same cost and liability. Is there an industry where such a compensation dichotomy is present?

Mr. Dave wrote: First, it never was the % that was the problem, so your entire argument is invalid.
Second, there are a few of us, a very few of us, who do not rely on Bethesda for anything. We create our own content and can use third party programs to implement them. This invalidates them as a source for anything.
I could be releasing my content for other games if Skyrim didn't exist. There are plenty of them.
Third, the modders who jumped on the "pay me pay me" bandwagon did not create their own content whatsoever. Everything uploaded for sale was either Bethesda assets, ported from another game legally, or ported from elsewhere illegally.
Modding will never improve due to money. This recent fiasco proved that the exact opposite happens. The mods being spammed up for sale were garbage, plain and simple.
Fourth, just because you are crying about the great victory for all of us, doesn't mean it wasn't a victory. I don't know... maybe your mom will bake you some cookies.

retnav98
I personally think 25% was terrible I probably wouldn't work for that low of a percentage. I just don't think I should have any say in what another human being considers reasonable or unreasonable. I'm unsure why you think them not being held liable is an issue. Whether they pay a percent or a set amount the distributor wouldn't be held liable regardless.

Person A: I got a job for 25,000/year doing the same thing I used to get 0/year.
Person B: They should pay you 100,000/year
Person A: No I'm good with the 25,000/year, thank you.
Person B: They shouldn't be allowed to pay you that little.
Person A: Please stop trying to help. I'm good with the 25,000/year.
Person B: No you should work for 100,000 or zero.
Person A: Please stop trying to help me. I'm really good with the 25,000/year. Edited May 6, 2015 by bullpcp

[retnav98]

In response to post #25000784.

Harbringe wrote:

 

The statistics given don't indicate that they haven't sold a single game since June 2013. They have currently sold over 23 million units of the game on all platforms. Please indicate were Bethesda indicated that it sold 23,270,000 units in June 2013.

 

In June 2013, Bethesda announced that over 20 million copies of the game had been sold.^[122] Regarding sales on the PC, Todd Howard stated in an interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun that “Skyrim did better than we’ve ever done on PC by a large, large number. And that’s where the mods are. That feeds the game for a long time."^{[123] . This is from the Skyrim Wiki}

 

Those numbers your quoting are the same numbers I found listed for different years . Found the same set a numbers for 2013 - 2014 and 2015 and thats when i thought OK something is just wrong here , thats impossible . By the way if they post a set of numbers in 2013 and others just repost those same numbers there is nothing illegal . Its not them doing it.

 

Now I've been doing this since this started and dont have links for everything but heres some math for you to do and you tell me if 14% for PC sales makes sense.

 

Playstation Global Total as of 21st Mar 2015 (units): 6.09m http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49113/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/

 

Xbox Global Total as of 21st Mar 2015 (units): 8.38m http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49112/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/

 

So take the 23,270,000 and subtract the 14.470,000 (combined Xbox/Playstation) = 8.800,000 PC sales . Does that sound like 14% .

 

If this kind of misinformation is being used to make the argument as to why they tried paid modding and it doesn't look to be true , then it begs the question what other considerations are involved that they are not telling us.

CRICKETS

[bullpcp]

In response to post #25000784. #25002679 is also a reply to the same post.

Harbringe wrote:

 

The statistics given don't indicate that they haven't sold a single game since June 2013. They have currently sold over 23 million units of the game on all platforms. Please indicate were Bethesda indicated that it sold 23,270,000 units in June 2013.

 

In June 2013, Bethesda announced that over 20 million copies of the game had been sold.^[122] Regarding sales on the PC, Todd Howard stated in an interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun that “Skyrim did better than we’ve ever done on PC by a large, large number. And that’s where the mods are. That feeds the game for a long time."^{[123] . This is from the Skyrim Wiki}

 

Those numbers your quoting are the same numbers I found listed for different years . Found the same set a numbers for 2013 - 2014 and 2015 and thats when i thought OK something is just wrong here , thats impossible . By the way if they post a set of numbers in 2013 and others just repost those same numbers there is nothing illegal . Its not them doing it.

 

Now I've been doing this since this started and dont have links for everything but heres some math for you to do and you tell me if 14% for PC sales makes sense.

 

Playstation Global Total as of 21st Mar 2015 (units): 6.09m http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49113/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/

 

Xbox Global Total as of 21st Mar 2015 (units): 8.38m http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49112/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/

 

So take the 23,270,000 and subtract the 14.470,000 (combined Xbox/Playstation) = 8.800,000 PC sales . Does that sound like 14% .

 

If this kind of misinformation is being used to make the argument as to why they tried paid modding and it doesn't look to be true , then it begs the question what other considerations are involved that they are not telling us.

retnav98 wrote: CRICKETS

You should have checked the PC section of the same site.

Platform
Playstation 3 6.09m 33.51678591%
Xbox 360 8.38m 46.11997799%
Microsoft Windows 3.7m 20.3632361%
total 18.17m

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49113/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49112/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49111/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/

This is older data, 21st Mar 2015, that seems to indicate, if accurate, that the percent of PC sells has dropped over time if compared to newer data, April 12th, 2015. This doesn't seem to contradict but corroborate the previous data.

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

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074, #25002429 are all replies on the same post.

janishewski wrote: Since some mod authors erase any comment they don't agree with I will state my argument for paid mods here. I am a chef and a restaurant owner. What does that have to do with this you ask? The analogy is that Valve would be my infrastructure. The things that allow my business to operate (utilities, the building housing my restaurant, parking, etc). Bethesda would be my food companies. They provide me with the resources and tools needed to produce my product. Then I, using these resources create and sell what I've produced. Anyone wanna guess what my average profit margin is after expenses. Yep, you guessed it, 25-30%. Around 30% is standard for the industry though obviously there are those that make more and those that make less. If someone told me I could make a guaranteed 25% profit for the rest of the time my business exists, I would take it in a heartbeat, and so would anyone else I've ever known in the industry. So lets stop pretending that it was the % that mod makers were getting that was the problem. Obviously those selling their mods and those that wanted to did not feel that way. Would a 35% been better, of course, but 25% was a perfectly acceptable place to start.
I work roughly 80-100 hours per week. If I were to let people come in and eat my food with nothing more than a "donation" option, how long do you think I would be motivated to continue to work and how long would a business like that last? The answer to both is "not one minute". If everyone that downloaded and endorsed a mod "donated" even 50 cents American to the modder, this would never be an issue. The truth that I have heard from modders is that, for some of the larger mods, it is less than 1% of endorsers that donate. So please stop with the donation nonsense. Hoping for donations does not pay the bills. What you rejected was the ability for talented people to build an entire industry around creating more content for great games. Nobody was forcing anything on anyone and free mods would still be all over the place as they were. What you took away was choice and as a result, the number, quality, and ambition of mods will take a hit and talented modders will move on to other projects or mod for games to do allow them compensation for their labor. This was a victory for nobody. It was also irrelevant as optional paid mods will return and they will return with Bethesda products. I guarantee that and I don't guarantee much. Anyway, I hope that this post offers a different way to look at the issue.

bullpcp wrote: People were essentially opposed to other consenting adults voluntarily interacting n a manner that they didn't agree with.

25% is actually much higher as a percentage return than many creators are able to get in many industries. I know that for instance authors often only get 5% for their works and that if you make the financial comparison the return on assets is often only around 8%.

Of course the only relevant opinions on the matter of just compensation and cost are between those selling and those purchasing goods and services.

retnav98 wrote: People talk about the costs to host mods as a reasonable justification for taking 75% of the profit... But they are/were taking None of the LIABILITY. As well, they are hosting Free mods of Arguably BETTER Quality and incurring the same cost and liability. Is there an industry where such a compensation dichotomy is present?

Mr. Dave wrote: First, it never was the % that was the problem, so your entire argument is invalid.
Second, there are a few of us, a very few of us, who do not rely on Bethesda for anything. We create our own content and can use third party programs to implement them. This invalidates them as a source for anything.
I could be releasing my content for other games if Skyrim didn't exist. There are plenty of them.
Third, the modders who jumped on the "pay me pay me" bandwagon did not create their own content whatsoever. Everything uploaded for sale was either Bethesda assets, ported from another game legally, or ported from elsewhere illegally.
Modding will never improve due to money. This recent fiasco proved that the exact opposite happens. The mods being spammed up for sale were garbage, plain and simple.
Fourth, just because you are crying about the great victory for all of us, doesn't mean it wasn't a victory. I don't know... maybe your mom will bake you some cookies.

bullpcp wrote: retnav98
I personally think 25% was terrible I probably wouldn't work for that low of a percentage. I just don't think I should have any say in what another human being considers reasonable or unreasonable. I'm unsure why you think them not being held liable is an issue. Whether they pay a percent or a set amount the distributor wouldn't be held liable regardless.

Person A: I got a job for 25,000/year doing the same thing I used to get 0/year.
Person B: They should pay you 100,000/year
Person A: No I'm good with the 25,000/year, thank you.
Person B: They shouldn't be allowed to pay you that little.
Person A: Please stop trying to help. I'm good with the 25,000/year.
Person B: No you should work for 100,000 or zero.
Person A: Please stop trying to help me. I'm really good with the 25,000/year.

"First, it never was the % that was the problem, so your entire argument is invalid."
For many this is exactly what they mentioned in their arguments so it may be irrelevant for you but several hundred posts would indicate others hold a different view on this.

"Second, there are a few of us, a very few of us, who do not rely on Bethesda for anything. We create our own content and can use third party programs to implement them. This invalidates them as a source for anything."

If you are referring to things produced that have nothing to do with Skyrim or Bethesda obvious statements are obvious. If you are referring to mods, or anything else, that runs on Skyrim's engine, but created not using their creation kit. Then you are still using their IP. You do realize making something to run on another game engine... kinda uses their IP.

"I could be releasing my content for other games if Skyrim didn't exist. There are plenty of them."

Uh... Yea. Did someone tell you that if you made something that had nothing to do with Skryim or Bethesda you couldn't distribute it? Yea that would be obviously wrong.

"Third, the modders who jumped on the "pay me pay me" bandwagon did not create their own content whatsoever. Everything uploaded for sale was either Bethesda assets, ported from another game legally, or ported from elsewhere illegally."

So if what you stated is correct than many mods that Bethesda already technically owned were being allowed to be sold for profit by people who did not own them. I don't know that anyone actually ever advocated for the allowing stolen IP to be sold.

"Modding will never improve due to money. This recent fiasco proved that the exact opposite happens. The mods being spammed up for sale were garbage, plain and simple."

The garbage mods that were being spammed up for sale were not selling and would not have sold. The mods that would have sold may have been different. Since it was never given a chance we will never know. You are arguing a hypothetical... we all are.

"Fourth, just because you are crying about the great victory for all of us, doesn't mean it wasn't a victory. I don't know... maybe your mom will bake you some cookies."

I don't agree that is was a victory. I wasn't involved in any conflict so I feel no need to cry. You mad bro... need a hug? Maybe you can eat my moms cookies... jealous? Don't choke on the Haterade.

You do realize I actually benefit from this outcome. I don't want to pay for mods. I just feel that I should be able to look beyond my own self interest and propose a solution that is fair even if it disadvantages me.

[DesulNunuEagle]

I would just like to add to all of this talk about paying for mods I love the nexus but if I have to start paying for mods that may or may not be good the nexus won't be used by me anymore we shouldn't have to pay for that. MY opinion no need for comments back stating why they did it or why nexus might do it.

[retnav98]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074, #25002429, #25002999 are all replies on the same post.

janishewski wrote: Since some mod authors erase any comment they don't agree with I will state my argument for paid mods here. I am a chef and a restaurant owner. What does that have to do with this you ask? The analogy is that Valve would be my infrastructure. The things that allow my business to operate (utilities, the building housing my restaurant, parking, etc). Bethesda would be my food companies. They provide me with the resources and tools needed to produce my product. Then I, using these resources create and sell what I've produced. Anyone wanna guess what my average profit margin is after expenses. Yep, you guessed it, 25-30%. Around 30% is standard for the industry though obviously there are those that make more and those that make less. If someone told me I could make a guaranteed 25% profit for the rest of the time my business exists, I would take it in a heartbeat, and so would anyone else I've ever known in the industry. So lets stop pretending that it was the % that mod makers were getting that was the problem. Obviously those selling their mods and those that wanted to did not feel that way. Would a 35% been better, of course, but 25% was a perfectly acceptable place to start.
I work roughly 80-100 hours per week. If I were to let people come in and eat my food with nothing more than a "donation" option, how long do you think I would be motivated to continue to work and how long would a business like that last? The answer to both is "not one minute". If everyone that downloaded and endorsed a mod "donated" even 50 cents American to the modder, this would never be an issue. The truth that I have heard from modders is that, for some of the larger mods, it is less than 1% of endorsers that donate. So please stop with the donation nonsense. Hoping for donations does not pay the bills. What you rejected was the ability for talented people to build an entire industry around creating more content for great games. Nobody was forcing anything on anyone and free mods would still be all over the place as they were. What you took away was choice and as a result, the number, quality, and ambition of mods will take a hit and talented modders will move on to other projects or mod for games to do allow them compensation for their labor. This was a victory for nobody. It was also irrelevant as optional paid mods will return and they will return with Bethesda products. I guarantee that and I don't guarantee much. Anyway, I hope that this post offers a different way to look at the issue.

bullpcp wrote: People were essentially opposed to other consenting adults voluntarily interacting n a manner that they didn't agree with.

25% is actually much higher as a percentage return than many creators are able to get in many industries. I know that for instance authors often only get 5% for their works and that if you make the financial comparison the return on assets is often only around 8%.

Of course the only relevant opinions on the matter of just compensation and cost are between those selling and those purchasing goods and services.

retnav98 wrote: People talk about the costs to host mods as a reasonable justification for taking 75% of the profit... But they are/were taking None of the LIABILITY. As well, they are hosting Free mods of Arguably BETTER Quality and incurring the same cost and liability. Is there an industry where such a compensation dichotomy is present?

Mr. Dave wrote: First, it never was the % that was the problem, so your entire argument is invalid.
Second, there are a few of us, a very few of us, who do not rely on Bethesda for anything. We create our own content and can use third party programs to implement them. This invalidates them as a source for anything.
I could be releasing my content for other games if Skyrim didn't exist. There are plenty of them.
Third, the modders who jumped on the "pay me pay me" bandwagon did not create their own content whatsoever. Everything uploaded for sale was either Bethesda assets, ported from another game legally, or ported from elsewhere illegally.
Modding will never improve due to money. This recent fiasco proved that the exact opposite happens. The mods being spammed up for sale were garbage, plain and simple.
Fourth, just because you are crying about the great victory for all of us, doesn't mean it wasn't a victory. I don't know... maybe your mom will bake you some cookies.

bullpcp wrote: retnav98
I personally think 25% was terrible I probably wouldn't work for that low of a percentage. I just don't think I should have any say in what another human being considers reasonable or unreasonable. I'm unsure why you think them not being held liable is an issue. Whether they pay a percent or a set amount the distributor wouldn't be held liable regardless.

Person A: I got a job for 25,000/year doing the same thing I used to get 0/year.
Person B: They should pay you 100,000/year
Person A: No I'm good with the 25,000/year, thank you.
Person B: They shouldn't be allowed to pay you that little.
Person A: Please stop trying to help. I'm good with the 25,000/year.
Person B: No you should work for 100,000 or zero.
Person A: Please stop trying to help me. I'm really good with the 25,000/year.

bullpcp wrote: "First, it never was the % that was the problem, so your entire argument is invalid."
For many this is exactly what they mentioned in their arguments so it may be irrelevant for you but several hundred posts would indicate others hold a different view on this.

"Second, there are a few of us, a very few of us, who do not rely on Bethesda for anything. We create our own content and can use third party programs to implement them. This invalidates them as a source for anything."

If you are referring to things produced that have nothing to do with Skyrim or Bethesda obvious statements are obvious. If you are referring to mods, or anything else, that runs on Skyrim's engine, but created not using their creation kit. Then you are still using their IP. You do realize making something to run on another game engine... kinda uses their IP.

"I could be releasing my content for other games if Skyrim didn't exist. There are plenty of them."

Uh... Yea. Did someone tell you that if you made something that had nothing to do with Skryim or Bethesda you couldn't distribute it? Yea that would be obviously wrong.

"Third, the modders who jumped on the "pay me pay me" bandwagon did not create their own content whatsoever. Everything uploaded for sale was either Bethesda assets, ported from another game legally, or ported from elsewhere illegally."

So if what you stated is correct than many mods that Bethesda already technically owned were being allowed to be sold for profit by people who did not own them. I don't know that anyone actually ever advocated for the allowing stolen IP to be sold.

"Modding will never improve due to money. This recent fiasco proved that the exact opposite happens. The mods being spammed up for sale were garbage, plain and simple."

The garbage mods that were being spammed up for sale were not selling and would not have sold. The mods that would have sold may have been different. Since it was never given a chance we will never know. You are arguing a hypothetical... we all are.

"Fourth, just because you are crying about the great victory for all of us, doesn't mean it wasn't a victory. I don't know... maybe your mom will bake you some cookies."

I don't agree that is was a victory. I wasn't involved in any conflict so I feel no need to cry. You mad bro... need a hug? Maybe you can eat my moms cookies... jealous? Don't choke on the Haterade.

You do realize I actually benefit from this outcome. I don't want to pay for mods. I just feel that I should be able to look beyond my own self interest and propose a solution that is fair even if it disadvantages me.

I agree...I don't have a right to tell people what compensation for THEIR efforts is fair. Does that mean that I should remain silent while I am aware that LIES and misinformation is being foisted?

The liability they incur is only the cost of a refund, which they did honor while simultaneously penalizing the USER. Does that response HELP Modders?. It would be reasonable to infer that this response was hurtful to modders; it kind of looks like Valve was NOT supporting the Modders at all. You gotta wonder what the end-game was...It might be they were not all on the same page at Bethesda and Valve.

What if they WERE all mindful of an endgame that was NOT what they publicly asserted...We're seeing that statistics cited were not credible...WHAT ELSE?

[bullpcp]

In response to post #25003024.

DesulNunuEagle wrote: I would just like to add to all of this talk about paying for mods I love the nexus but if I have to start paying for mods that may or may not be good the nexus won't be used by me anymore we shouldn't have to pay for that. MY opinion no need for comments back stating why they did it or why nexus might do it.

Dark0ne stated explicitly that he will never charge for mods. Regardless of paid for mods the Nexus would never charge.

If you would never pay for mods... you aren't even a potential customer. How would you be relevant to those proposing to sell or those proposing to purchase?

[bullpcp]

In response to post #25000784. #25002679, #25002729 are all replies on the same post.

Harbringe wrote:

 

The statistics given don't indicate that they haven't sold a single game since June 2013. They have currently sold over 23 million units of the game on all platforms. Please indicate were Bethesda indicated that it sold 23,270,000 units in June 2013.

 

In June 2013, Bethesda announced that over 20 million copies of the game had been sold.^[122] Regarding sales on the PC, Todd Howard stated in an interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun that “Skyrim did better than we’ve ever done on PC by a large, large number. And that’s where the mods are. That feeds the game for a long time."^{[123] . This is from the Skyrim Wiki}

 

Those numbers your quoting are the same numbers I found listed for different years . Found the same set a numbers for 2013 - 2014 and 2015 and thats when i thought OK something is just wrong here , thats impossible . By the way if they post a set of numbers in 2013 and others just repost those same numbers there is nothing illegal . Its not them doing it.

 

Now I've been doing this since this started and dont have links for everything but heres some math for you to do and you tell me if 14% for PC sales makes sense.

 

Playstation Global Total as of 21st Mar 2015 (units): 6.09m http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49113/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/

 

Xbox Global Total as of 21st Mar 2015 (units): 8.38m http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49112/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/

 

So take the 23,270,000 and subtract the 14.470,000 (combined Xbox/Playstation) = 8.800,000 PC sales . Does that sound like 14% .

 

If this kind of misinformation is being used to make the argument as to why they tried paid modding and it doesn't look to be true , then it begs the question what other considerations are involved that they are not telling us.

retnav98 wrote: CRICKETS

bullpcp wrote: You should have checked the PC section of the same site.

Platform
Playstation 3 6.09m 33.51678591%
Xbox 360 8.38m 46.11997799%
Microsoft Windows 3.7m 20.3632361%
total 18.17m

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49113/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49112/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49111/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/

This is older data, 21st Mar 2015, that seems to indicate, if accurate, that the percent of PC sells has dropped over time if compared to newer data, April 12th, 2015. This doesn't seem to contradict but corroborate the previous data.

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

Please indicate where "In June 2013, Bethesda announced that over 20 million copies of the game had been sold." I found over half a dozen articles referencing the 20 million, the earliest released on Jan January 23, 2014 by Bethesda not June 2013.

Please indicate where official statistics from 2013 - 2014 and 2015 match. I can't find Skyrim data at different times that give the same numbers. Please indicate where I can find such data.

Articles referencing 20 million Skyrim units sold.

January 23, 2014
Skyrim earned hundreds of ‘Game of the Year’ awards and sold over 20 million copies.
Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 by Jessica Finster
http://www.bethblog.com/2014/01/23/the-elder-scrolls-online-voice-cast-revealed/


Jan. 27, 2014
http://time.com/1875/at-20-million-copies-sold-skyrim-is-in-the-top-20-bestselling-games-of-all-time/

References the above artical.
http://gamerant.com/skyrim-sells-20-million/

MON 27 JAN 2014
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-01-27-skyrim-has-sold-over-20-million-copies


Monday, 27 January 2014 21:31 GMT
http://www.vg247.com/2014/01/27/skyrim-has-sold-over-20-million-units-bethesda-announces/

January 27, 2014
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-sells-20-million-copies/1100-6417363/

JANUARY 28, 2014
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/01/28/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-has-sold-over-20-million-copies/

Peace. :) Edited May 6, 2015 by bullpcp

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074, #25002429, #25002999, #25003089 are all replies on the same post.

janishewski wrote: Since some mod authors erase any comment they don't agree with I will state my argument for paid mods here. I am a chef and a restaurant owner. What does that have to do with this you ask? The analogy is that Valve would be my infrastructure. The things that allow my business to operate (utilities, the building housing my restaurant, parking, etc). Bethesda would be my food companies. They provide me with the resources and tools needed to produce my product. Then I, using these resources create and sell what I've produced. Anyone wanna guess what my average profit margin is after expenses. Yep, you guessed it, 25-30%. Around 30% is standard for the industry though obviously there are those that make more and those that make less. If someone told me I could make a guaranteed 25% profit for the rest of the time my business exists, I would take it in a heartbeat, and so would anyone else I've ever known in the industry. So lets stop pretending that it was the % that mod makers were getting that was the problem. Obviously those selling their mods and those that wanted to did not feel that way. Would a 35% been better, of course, but 25% was a perfectly acceptable place to start.
I work roughly 80-100 hours per week. If I were to let people come in and eat my food with nothing more than a "donation" option, how long do you think I would be motivated to continue to work and how long would a business like that last? The answer to both is "not one minute". If everyone that downloaded and endorsed a mod "donated" even 50 cents American to the modder, this would never be an issue. The truth that I have heard from modders is that, for some of the larger mods, it is less than 1% of endorsers that donate. So please stop with the donation nonsense. Hoping for donations does not pay the bills. What you rejected was the ability for talented people to build an entire industry around creating more content for great games. Nobody was forcing anything on anyone and free mods would still be all over the place as they were. What you took away was choice and as a result, the number, quality, and ambition of mods will take a hit and talented modders will move on to other projects or mod for games to do allow them compensation for their labor. This was a victory for nobody. It was also irrelevant as optional paid mods will return and they will return with Bethesda products. I guarantee that and I don't guarantee much. Anyway, I hope that this post offers a different way to look at the issue.

bullpcp wrote: People were essentially opposed to other consenting adults voluntarily interacting n a manner that they didn't agree with.

25% is actually much higher as a percentage return than many creators are able to get in many industries. I know that for instance authors often only get 5% for their works and that if you make the financial comparison the return on assets is often only around 8%.

Of course the only relevant opinions on the matter of just compensation and cost are between those selling and those purchasing goods and services.

retnav98 wrote: People talk about the costs to host mods as a reasonable justification for taking 75% of the profit... But they are/were taking None of the LIABILITY. As well, they are hosting Free mods of Arguably BETTER Quality and incurring the same cost and liability. Is there an industry where such a compensation dichotomy is present?

Mr. Dave wrote: First, it never was the % that was the problem, so your entire argument is invalid.
Second, there are a few of us, a very few of us, who do not rely on Bethesda for anything. We create our own content and can use third party programs to implement them. This invalidates them as a source for anything.
I could be releasing my content for other games if Skyrim didn't exist. There are plenty of them.
Third, the modders who jumped on the "pay me pay me" bandwagon did not create their own content whatsoever. Everything uploaded for sale was either Bethesda assets, ported from another game legally, or ported from elsewhere illegally.
Modding will never improve due to money. This recent fiasco proved that the exact opposite happens. The mods being spammed up for sale were garbage, plain and simple.
Fourth, just because you are crying about the great victory for all of us, doesn't mean it wasn't a victory. I don't know... maybe your mom will bake you some cookies.

bullpcp wrote: retnav98
I personally think 25% was terrible I probably wouldn't work for that low of a percentage. I just don't think I should have any say in what another human being considers reasonable or unreasonable. I'm unsure why you think them not being held liable is an issue. Whether they pay a percent or a set amount the distributor wouldn't be held liable regardless.

Person A: I got a job for 25,000/year doing the same thing I used to get 0/year.
Person B: They should pay you 100,000/year
Person A: No I'm good with the 25,000/year, thank you.
Person B: They shouldn't be allowed to pay you that little.
Person A: Please stop trying to help. I'm good with the 25,000/year.
Person B: No you should work for 100,000 or zero.
Person A: Please stop trying to help me. I'm really good with the 25,000/year.

bullpcp wrote: "First, it never was the % that was the problem, so your entire argument is invalid."
For many this is exactly what they mentioned in their arguments so it may be irrelevant for you but several hundred posts would indicate others hold a different view on this.

"Second, there are a few of us, a very few of us, who do not rely on Bethesda for anything. We create our own content and can use third party programs to implement them. This invalidates them as a source for anything."

If you are referring to things produced that have nothing to do with Skyrim or Bethesda obvious statements are obvious. If you are referring to mods, or anything else, that runs on Skyrim's engine, but created not using their creation kit. Then you are still using their IP. You do realize making something to run on another game engine... kinda uses their IP.

"I could be releasing my content for other games if Skyrim didn't exist. There are plenty of them."

Uh... Yea. Did someone tell you that if you made something that had nothing to do with Skryim or Bethesda you couldn't distribute it? Yea that would be obviously wrong.

"Third, the modders who jumped on the "pay me pay me" bandwagon did not create their own content whatsoever. Everything uploaded for sale was either Bethesda assets, ported from another game legally, or ported from elsewhere illegally."

So if what you stated is correct than many mods that Bethesda already technically owned were being allowed to be sold for profit by people who did not own them. I don't know that anyone actually ever advocated for the allowing stolen IP to be sold.

"Modding will never improve due to money. This recent fiasco proved that the exact opposite happens. The mods being spammed up for sale were garbage, plain and simple."

The garbage mods that were being spammed up for sale were not selling and would not have sold. The mods that would have sold may have been different. Since it was never given a chance we will never know. You are arguing a hypothetical... we all are.

"Fourth, just because you are crying about the great victory for all of us, doesn't mean it wasn't a victory. I don't know... maybe your mom will bake you some cookies."

I don't agree that is was a victory. I wasn't involved in any conflict so I feel no need to cry. You mad bro... need a hug? Maybe you can eat my moms cookies... jealous? Don't choke on the Haterade.

You do realize I actually benefit from this outcome. I don't want to pay for mods. I just feel that I should be able to look beyond my own self interest and propose a solution that is fair even if it disadvantages me.

retnav98 wrote: I agree...I don't have a right to tell people what compensation for THEIR efforts is fair. Does that mean that I should remain silent while I am aware that LIES and misinformation is being foisted?

The liability they incur is only the cost of a refund, which they did honor while simultaneously penalizing the USER. Does that response HELP Modders?. It would be reasonable to infer that this response was hurtful to modders; it kind of looks like Valve was NOT supporting the Modders at all. You gotta wonder what the end-game was...It might be they were not all on the same page at Bethesda and Valve.

What if they WERE all mindful of an endgame that was NOT what they publicly asserted...We're seeing that statistics cited were not credible...WHAT ELSE?

retnav98
Please indicate where and how Bethesda and Valve related "LIES and misinformation". I'm honestly interested in the who, what, and were of such misinformation but have yet to read a credible citation.

How does a refund penalize the USER?
By "response" are you referring to the refund because yes a refund would help a mod user and no that would not be hurtful to modders. Bad mods get downloaded for free everyday if you give back the mod users right back were they started. Could mod users abuse the system... maybe but systems evolve... when given the chance. For instance Valve was going to limit refunds.

What statistics were they relating were not valid?

Hanlon's razor
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."~Robert A. Heinlein'