Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[Tyerial12]

In response to post #24949999. #24951589, #24955079, #24955234, #24964064, #24964209, #24964824, #24965064, #24967959, #24969044, #24969234 are all replies on the same post.

OH72 wrote:

 

In response to post #24947964.

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

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

 

Which you didn't describe correctly

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace. :)

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

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

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

Peace. :D

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

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

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

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

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

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

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

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

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

I would play Skryim without mods if I had to.

Azulyn wrote: "LOL mods are not KEY to skyrim when will people get this... Skyrim can be played mod free.. my bro and i sometimes do it on weekends..Mods do not make Skyrim they help enjoy them but are not key"
Nah, they pretty much are key for me. Vanilla Skyrim is a boring clusterf*#@ after the first play through. Now vanilla Morrowind? I could play that over and over with or without mods and it never got old.

bullpcp wrote: Azulyn

Mods may very well be the key to many individuals enjoyment of the game but mods are certainly not the key for most considering only 8% of Skyrim players have ever used one.

Mods are not the key to Skyrims commercial success. They definitely helped, but many in the modding community have overstated their importance to the success of Skyrim. I love mods, and have spent far more hours than I care to think about reading about them, but mods are just not the primary contributors to Skyrims financial success, regardless of my own personal feelings on the matter.

sunshinenbrick wrote: Mods do however contribute to the "word of mouth" and advertisement of Skyrim (even before it was realeased). All the youtube channels and reviews, forums now all add to the awareness of the game and the ethos, lore and culture that surround it. This is a huge marketing tool and has tremendous pull power. It would be interesting to see statistics like how many players came to own both a console and a PC version of the game and maybe the "second-life" sales figures as mods became more prominent.

never said vst majority i just said skyrim dont need mods to be playable. I aswell use mods and play vanilla is like playing vanilla mc very boring but to say you must have mods is just not the case

[sunshinenbrick]

In response to post #24949999. #24951589, #24955079, #24955234, #24964064, #24964209, #24964824, #24965064, #24967959, #24969044, #24969234, #24971569 are all replies on the same post.

OH72 wrote:

 

In response to post #24947964.

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

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

 

Which you didn't describe correctly

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace. :)

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

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

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

Peace. :D

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

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

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

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

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

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

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

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

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

I would play Skryim without mods if I had to.

Azulyn wrote: "LOL mods are not KEY to skyrim when will people get this... Skyrim can be played mod free.. my bro and i sometimes do it on weekends..Mods do not make Skyrim they help enjoy them but are not key"
Nah, they pretty much are key for me. Vanilla Skyrim is a boring clusterf*#@ after the first play through. Now vanilla Morrowind? I could play that over and over with or without mods and it never got old.

bullpcp wrote: Azulyn

Mods may very well be the key to many individuals enjoyment of the game but mods are certainly not the key for most considering only 8% of Skyrim players have ever used one.

Mods are not the key to Skyrims commercial success. They definitely helped, but many in the modding community have overstated their importance to the success of Skyrim. I love mods, and have spent far more hours than I care to think about reading about them, but mods are just not the primary contributors to Skyrims financial success, regardless of my own personal feelings on the matter.

sunshinenbrick wrote: Mods do however contribute to the "word of mouth" and advertisement of Skyrim (even before it was realeased). All the youtube channels and reviews, forums now all add to the awareness of the game and the ethos, lore and culture that surround it. This is a huge marketing tool and has tremendous pull power. It would be interesting to see statistics like how many players came to own both a console and a PC version of the game and maybe the "second-life" sales figures as mods became more prominent.

Tyerial12 wrote: never said vst majority i just said skyrim dont need mods to be playable. I aswell use mods and play vanilla is like playing vanilla mc very boring but to say you must have mods is just not the case

I just hope Valvethesda don't ever release a game you have to buy mods to play. *rabbit* offline subscriptions! Edited May 5, 2015 by sunshinenbrick

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24949999. #24951589, #24955079, #24955234, #24964064, #24964209, #24964824, #24965064, #24967959, #24969044, #24969234, #24971569, #24971929 are all replies on the same post.

OH72 wrote:

 

In response to post #24947964.

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

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

 

Which you didn't describe correctly

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace. :)

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

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

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

Peace. :D

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

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

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

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

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

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

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

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

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

I would play Skryim without mods if I had to.

Azulyn wrote: "LOL mods are not KEY to skyrim when will people get this... Skyrim can be played mod free.. my bro and i sometimes do it on weekends..Mods do not make Skyrim they help enjoy them but are not key"
Nah, they pretty much are key for me. Vanilla Skyrim is a boring clusterf*#@ after the first play through. Now vanilla Morrowind? I could play that over and over with or without mods and it never got old.

bullpcp wrote: Azulyn

Mods may very well be the key to many individuals enjoyment of the game but mods are certainly not the key for most considering only 8% of Skyrim players have ever used one.

Mods are not the key to Skyrims commercial success. They definitely helped, but many in the modding community have overstated their importance to the success of Skyrim. I love mods, and have spent far more hours than I care to think about reading about them, but mods are just not the primary contributors to Skyrims financial success, regardless of my own personal feelings on the matter.

sunshinenbrick wrote: Mods do however contribute to the "word of mouth" and advertisement of Skyrim (even before it was realeased). All the youtube channels and reviews, forums now all add to the awareness of the game and the ethos, lore and culture that surround it. This is a huge marketing tool and has tremendous pull power. It would be interesting to see statistics like how many players came to own both a console and a PC version of the game and maybe the "second-life" sales figures as mods became more prominent.

Tyerial12 wrote: never said vst majority i just said skyrim dont need mods to be playable. I aswell use mods and play vanilla is like playing vanilla mc very boring but to say you must have mods is just not the case

sunshinenbrick wrote: I just hope Valvethesda don't ever release a game you have to buy mods to play. *rabbit* offline subscriptions!

I will never buy a game that makes you pay for mods. Period. It's bad enough Bethesda released Skyrim as barebones as it was. I'd hate to imagine how many corners they would cut if they knew modders would finish their game for them, and they could make even more profit the more unfinished the game was.

[sunshinenbrick]

In response to post #24949999. #24951589, #24955079, #24955234, #24964064, #24964209, #24964824, #24965064, #24967959, #24969044, #24969234, #24971569, #24971929, #24972329 are all replies on the same post.

OH72 wrote:

 

In response to post #24947964.

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

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

 

Which you didn't describe correctly

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace. :)

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

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

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

Peace. :D

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

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

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

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745

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

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

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

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

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

I would play Skryim without mods if I had to.

Azulyn wrote: "LOL mods are not KEY to skyrim when will people get this... Skyrim can be played mod free.. my bro and i sometimes do it on weekends..Mods do not make Skyrim they help enjoy them but are not key"
Nah, they pretty much are key for me. Vanilla Skyrim is a boring clusterf*#@ after the first play through. Now vanilla Morrowind? I could play that over and over with or without mods and it never got old.

bullpcp wrote: Azulyn

Mods may very well be the key to many individuals enjoyment of the game but mods are certainly not the key for most considering only 8% of Skyrim players have ever used one.

Mods are not the key to Skyrims commercial success. They definitely helped, but many in the modding community have overstated their importance to the success of Skyrim. I love mods, and have spent far more hours than I care to think about reading about them, but mods are just not the primary contributors to Skyrims financial success, regardless of my own personal feelings on the matter.

sunshinenbrick wrote: Mods do however contribute to the "word of mouth" and advertisement of Skyrim (even before it was realeased). All the youtube channels and reviews, forums now all add to the awareness of the game and the ethos, lore and culture that surround it. This is a huge marketing tool and has tremendous pull power. It would be interesting to see statistics like how many players came to own both a console and a PC version of the game and maybe the "second-life" sales figures as mods became more prominent.

Tyerial12 wrote: never said vst majority i just said skyrim dont need mods to be playable. I aswell use mods and play vanilla is like playing vanilla mc very boring but to say you must have mods is just not the case

sunshinenbrick wrote: I just hope Valvethesda don't ever release a game you have to buy mods to play. *rabbit* offline subscriptions!

Vesuvius1745 wrote: I will never buy a game that makes you pay for mods. Period. It's bad enough Bethesda released Skyrim as barebones as it was. I'd hate to imagine how many corners they would cut if they knew modders would finish their game for them, and they could make even more profit the more unfinished the game was.

Feel... the need to... share...

x x x

[RoboJasonMan]

In response to post #24965229. #24965294, #24965344, #24967219, #24968809, #24969484 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"?

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. Edited May 5, 2015 by RoboJasonMan

[theavernus]

Great podcast with Brumbek and TB. Changed my mind on a lot of things. I seriously recommend a listen and try to do so with an open mind putting your feelings and opinions in the background for a few hours :) Edited May 5, 2015 by theavernus

[gingersnapples]

It's probably for the best. I've said all i need to say. I'm happy to be rid of this for a time. no reason to forget, but not talking about it is a welcome change.

[PrinzEugenio]

I've only got into modding recently, and followed this mayhem with a lot of interest. I appreciate the fact that you look at the subject of paid modding from all different angles, and kept your cool during the awful period. Just wanted to say thanks for that, and for the very, very informative articles you gave us here about it all. Big thumbs up for the way Nexus has handled this, and I am sure will handle this in the future!

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24966929. #24966984, #24967199, #24968504, #24969224 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.

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.

[shaithlis]

The only way ppl are gonna move on and stop talking about this all the time is for Dark0ne to turn off the comments on these posts.