Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24965229. #24965294, #24965344, #24967219, #24968809, #24969484, #24976929, #25001309 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.

retnav98 wrote: @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.

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

No, my mind is way too strong for that.

Can I make a completely transparent sophistic plea to your ego and have you believe whatever you "feel" to be correct?

Peace. :)

[Kraggy]

Sadly this episode exposed the 'entitlement generation' in all their ugly reality, the venom spewed by the freetards who believe everything is theirs by right for nothing was appalling. It was a nasty shock to use more 'mature' players to see it infesting the 'TES community' so destructively.

 

I agree Dark0ne, we need to move on, but I also agree with what you clearly feel, that the community will never be the same again. :sad:

 

[edit]

 

I'm a noob here, my post count shows it, I only took out Premium a few days ago but I've used Nexus pretty much since it started hosting Morrowind mods, I never felt the need to avoid ads, but it was my way of showing some tangible support for the site and those that run it, without Nexus as a place to find the best mods and modders in one place I could trust (in terms of secure and malware-free content), my enjoyment of Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim would have been hugely less.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24965229. #24965294, #24965344, #24967219, #24968809, #24969484, #24976929, #25001309, #25006569 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.

retnav98 wrote: @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 wrote: aegiltheugly
"Can I wave my hand at you and say "these are the statistics you're looking for"?

No, my mind is way too strong for that.

Can I make a completely transparent sophistic plea to your ego and have you believe whatever you "feel" to be correct?

Peace. :)

RoboJasonMan
"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/"

The above article cites the below article for the Skyrim statistic.
Jan. 27, 2014
http://time.com/1875/at-20-million-copies-sold-skyrim-is-in-the-top-20-bestselling-games-of-all-time/

Which cites the original at
January 23, 2014 on
http://www.bethblog.com/2014/01/23/the-elder-scrolls-online-voice-cast-revealed/

"Unfortunately, the 14% estimate for PC sales comes from statistical estimates from within the first few days of launch."

It is research dated April 12th, 2015.

Statistic Verification
Source: Bethesda Game Studios, Steam, Zenimax
Research Date: April 12th, 2015

"Since Valve doesn't publicly release their number of sales for games, we have to estimate it."

The source for the above data is reported to be Bethesda, Steam, and Zenimax. Let me reiterate that one of the sources of data was STEAM.

"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."

Given that one of the sources of the original 14% statistics researched on April 15, 205 was Steam you would have to come to the conclusion that Steam somehow doesn't know how many units of Skyrim they have sold. Seems unlikely.

Depending upon how they programmed the web crawler they could have counted Skyrim related files incorrectly as the Skyrim game. I don't know how accurate they are. I do know that they are journalists and don't pretend to be otherwise. If they are correct then the total PC sales are much higher than 5.7 million as this only counts those sold through Valve. In this case the total PC users is much higher than 30%... and would contradict all other sets of data I have been able to find by a HUGE margin. My point is that either every other source of data on PC units sold for the last few years, including both Bethesda and Steam, or perhaps total sales as well, are way off OR Ars estimate is. I suspect I know which option you will chose but as for me I’ll follow the data and Occam's razor.

What I do know is that it is statistically invalid to use stats derived from different data sets and piecemeal cobble them together. It is invalid to say that I will use a total of PC units sold from one source, ars, and ignore the PC units sold from another source, statbrain, while still using the total from the other source, statbrain. If statbrains data set and statistical analysis says that only 14% of units sold were on the PC and the total units sold was 23,270,000 then 14% of 23,270,000 or 3,257,800 even if it is wrong. It is not valid to pick the highest percent estimate of PC sales from one data set and ignore it's totals and then combine it with the highest total sales from another data set while ignoring it’s PC estimates.

Peace. :)
Edited May 6, 2015 by bullpcp

[bullpcp]

In response to post #25007544.

Kraggy wrote:

Sadly this episode exposed the 'entitlement generation' in all their ugly reality, the venom spewed by the freetards who believe everything is theirs by right for nothing was appalling. It was a nasty shock to use more 'mature' players to see it infesting the 'TES community' so destructively.

 

I agree Dark0ne, we need to move on, but I also agree with what you clearly feel, that the community will never be the same again. :sad:

 

[edit]

 

I'm a noob here, my post count shows it, I only took out Premium a few days ago but I've used Nexus pretty much since it started hosting Morrowind mods, I never felt the need to avoid ads, but it was my way of showing some tangible support for the site and those that run it, without Nexus as a place to find the best mods and modders in one place I could trust (in terms of secure and malware-free content), my enjoyment of Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim would have been hugely less.

Much respect... but that was kinda... harsh.
Peace. :) Edited May 6, 2015 by bullpcp

[BoredErica]

There's a donate button on the Nexus? o.o

[hafizlordfeast]

In response to post #25003024. #25006084 is also a reply to the same post.

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.

bullpcp wrote: 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: Well, it is a fact that we all do pay for Skyrim, and mods are the special service and traits on why The Elder Scrolls and Fallout from Bethesda remains popular in the first place. Make some 'essential' mods to be charged with, then Skyrim becomes a money whoring DLC game.

Expecting us to pay money for unofficial implementation, and hoping it won't break our game. It's logical for it to be free to ensure that bad mods can be remove without wasting money, because we all know once mods able to have a price on it, varied dishonest advantage can be done. Hell, even Bethesda advice us that every mod that we add or remove, then you still need to make a new game.

I guess I have to start a new game after wasting my money on bad mods. Silly me, I should've check or becoming a tester if the modders want to fix the mods, IF they fix the mods. Remember, we pay for the game, but if Bethesda want to make their own way of smaller multiple DLCs, same as other gaming companies, (Conflicting or broken mods, of course), things that they don't work for, by the way, then I guess I won't even bother.

[retnav98]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074, #25002429, #25002999, #25003089, #25006504 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?

bullpcp wrote: 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'

It has been explained ad infinitum that Valve and Bethesda were and are endowed with an Extensive knowledge base in All aspects of Gaming... Just like things that are too good to be true, Excuses/decisions that defy the understanding of the rest of the Industry (too implausible to be true) are ALSO usually untrue.

I have read posts that estimate PC sales as high as 8.8 million..These estimates come from a variety of sources, You seem to be saying that they ALL are in error and the numbers/percentages that were originally projected sales just two days after release and are identical to what was represented as up-to-date...is pure coincidence.. Maybe I'm missing your concession...

It has been reported and confirmed that people who returned games for refund, were banned for a week. The reason (supposedly) was that it is policy to restrict unconfirmed payments...and it was a countermeasure to potential CC theft ..Who steals their Mommy's CC then asks for a refund? Notice, they didn't delay the purchase for a week. They allowed the user to have the mod, the Ban was enforced when a refund was requested. The punitive result of this policy Hurts sales...if users are discouraged from refunding...the more likely result is the USER will no longer BUY MODS...

"How can you be so obtuse?"
Andy Dufresne

[Tyerial12]

In response to post #24966929. #24966984, #24967199, #24968504, #24969224, #24988424, #24989869, #24991699, #24996829 are all replies on the same post.

gastovski wrote: I'm glad these stuff happened and ended quickly so it showed your true self, Dark0ne.

Tyerial12 wrote: Dark0ne did nothing wrong so whats your issue

gastovski wrote: He didn't step up against paid mods, end of discussion.

bullpcp wrote: Gastovski
He did't step up for paid mods, end of discussion. Two can play at that game. Huzzah!

Seriously though Dark0ne seems to have offended you by... disagreeing with you.

Peace. :)

aegiltheugly wrote: @gastovski: I agree with you about Dark0ne! Before this I had no idea he spoke with a British accent. Learning all sorts of things here.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: You can't trust people who speak with an English accent. Remember, it was these people who tried to take over our country in 1812.

aegiltheugly wrote: I just like the "showed your true self" rhetoric. We are gamers and programmers arguing about paid mods vs free mods; not politicians discussing the economic policy of the EU or the military strategy of a nation.

bigdeano89 wrote: Must be so nice to have such and ignorant black and white view on the world gastovski, maybe when you are older you will see the world is NEVER so black and white, and that you need to be tolerant of that to even survive in most jobs.

janishewski wrote: He did not speak against them because it was the right thing to do. Modders should have a choice to charge for mods or not. Nobody was forcing anything on anyone. If you don't want to support mods that cost money, don't buy them. Simple as that. And make no mistake, this was no victory. You have won nothing. Paid mods are coming, perhaps with more discussion and interaction from Bethesda, but they are coming and modding will be better for it. I guarantee you.

he wasnt for or against the mods he took a netural stance.. It wasnt his place to tell what modders can and cant do just like others should of let them have the choice. do i agree on paid mods NO because the system was flawed badly. And i fear that all that would be left on free mod sites is crap mods while all the good once are hidden behind a paywall. Not to mention. lets say Skui charged from now on there mod now look all mods that need it must have PAID for SKyui to use it even if the mod that requires it is free.

Some are barly making it in real life and use skyrim and mods to just chill and now to to that they will have to pay. No im not saying mod authors shouldnt get money for there work but im also saying that they shouldnt be using others work to avoid issues like this Edited May 6, 2015 by Tyerial12

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074, #25002429, #25002999, #25003089, #25006504, #25010279 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?

bullpcp wrote: 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'

retnav98 wrote: It has been explained ad infinitum that Valve and Bethesda were and are endowed with an Extensive knowledge base in All aspects of Gaming... Just like things that are too good to be true, Excuses/decisions that defy the understanding of the rest of the Industry (too implausible to be true) are ALSO usually untrue.

I have read posts that estimate PC sales as high as 8.8 million..These estimates come from a variety of sources, You seem to be saying that they ALL are in error and the numbers/percentages that were originally projected sales just two days after release and are identical to what was represented as up-to-date...is pure coincidence.. Maybe I'm missing your concession...

It has been reported and confirmed that people who returned games for refund, were banned for a week. The reason (supposedly) was that it is policy to restrict unconfirmed payments...and it was a countermeasure to potential CC theft ..Who steals their Mommy's CC then asks for a refund? Notice, they didn't delay the purchase for a week. They allowed the user to have the mod, the Ban was enforced when a refund was requested. The punitive result of this policy Hurts sales...if users are discouraged from refunding...the more likely result is the USER will no longer BUY MODS...

"How can you be so obtuse?"
Andy Dufresne

retnav98
I'm actually asking to cite specific examples with actual evidence to back up what you are saying. Instead you are repeatedly ASSERTING without a shred of evidence or data to back up your ASSERTIONS. I actually want to verify that what you are writing is correct to come to my own conclusions without relying upon some random people on the internet words for it. I want to come to the most logically conclusion based upon the most substantial evidence. If I am wrong I want to know exactly what and why.

How are you so comfortable simply accepting people's word for it? You seem incredibly at ease accepting what you want to be true without any evidence but don't even acknowledge dozens of citations directly contradicting your previous beliefs. You simply move onto the next assertion like nothing happened.

Please cite the source of the 8.8 million PC sales estimate. I have cited at least two complete sets of data for all three platform sales that indicate PC units sales are a minority. You assert that 8.8 million is sales is reasonable and that this number comes from a variety of sources than this should be really easy... cite one.

You keep ASSERTING that the percentage of sales on each platform were the same two days after release again... citation needed.

Were people have actually cited their sources they have often been misinterpreted or just plain wrong.

Please indicate were all of these reports are and how they were confirmed. Please indicate why Valves reasons are obviously wrong. I've had my account frozen several times in the last few years. I'm assuming the reasons they gave me were prima facie true but... maybe conspiracy... maybe reasons...

I have repeatedly pointed out how very poor the paid for mod execution was. You pointing out problems that occurred within 5 days of rolling out a new and untested product is hardly reason to believe it COULD not work. If what you write is correct about no one buying paid for mods then paid for mods would have naturally become irrelevant anyway.

Peace. :) Edited May 6, 2015 by bullpcp

[Harbringe]

 

 

My point wasn't to take the highest PC number and say that is conclusive , just to say that no matter how I have been looking at the numbers , from whatever source I'm using the numbers dont add up . Which in your last post you came up with numbers that were saying basically the same thing (and actually I think your percentages are probably closer 25% - 33% would be my quesstimate from what I'm seeing) . No matter how you slice this were still left with a claim of 14% for PC sales given 2 days after release and a claim of 23,270,000 total sales given in June of 2013 and you have to do alot of squishing and scrunching to make those numbers work to account for anything after June 2013 .

 

Heres something that would be interesting to do . Start a poll on the Nexus and frame it something like this.

 

In what platform have you bought Skyrim and when (If more than one please indicate)

 

Console (Xbox/Playstation) year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 (not limited to Skyrim , can include 1 or some or all expansions)

 

PC year 1 year 2 year3 year4 (same as above)

 

Legendary Edition

 

Console year 1 year 2

 

PC year 1 year 2

 

Now I understand this is not going to let us know what total sales are and I do understand this will be skewed to PC sales as this is a PC site but if we start to see a pattern of PC sales coming later or people waiting for the Legendary Edition it would tell us what the trend is for the PC market and could explain why the numbers don't add up , because they are simply not tallying them for public consumption . Only the taxman is someone who can say give me your total numbers for tax purposes.

 

At the very least I would think modders would be very interested in knowing what the trend is.

 

Also I dont know if the above years are even correct (if not would have to be fine tuned) but still the better informed modders are , the better decision they can make as to what to do or should do.