Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[Terramaris]

In response to post #25007544. #25007814 is also a reply to the same post.

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.

bullpcp wrote: Much respect... but that was kinda... harsh.
Peace. :)

Seems to be a great deal of Strawman in your post mate:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

You took a very complex point of view, and boiled it down to "people don't want to pay for stuff".

[CaladanAnduril]

1,474200248720376

 

Keep in mind this number, since the last trend is to debate about numbers.

Indeed a line was drawn, but not in the way you think, " we won and we go on"... happily ever after.

 

I never imagined that I will witness the day when a line of intolerance and hate will be drawn between the modders and the users.

 

During many years I created mods for all kind of games, from Unreal to STALKER, from Morrowind to FO 3 and FNV.

It was always a matter of equal collaboration, exchanging ideas and new ways to accomplish a goal.

Endless discussions, endless trials and errors until the final result meet the desired outcome.

Many months of hard work, boring work, exciting work...

 

They are some modders who steal resources, they are modders who lie and deceive others... but they are a minority, they are not representing the bulk of the modding community, they fail in imposing a trend or valor.

But the real modders learned from scratch ( not borrowing or piggy-backing how some pretended " modder" claimed here that is created a mod, maybe is his way...) how to work with the editors, no matter was named GECK or Creation Kit..., how to work with graphic programs or sound editors, asking others or simply using Bethesda tutorials.

 

But somehow... a minority imposed their violent way of "thinking", a minority who don't know the word OPPONENT, only the word ENEMY.

A minority who DENIED to ANY modders the FREEDOM of choice, the FREEDOM of act, the FREEDOM of speaking.

ALMOST all the comments was referring to MODDERS, as a group, not specifically to those INDIVIDUALS who make a free choice and shifting the debate from those who uploaded some mods to Valve to ALL the mooders.

 

A line was drawn between the arrogant and violent intolerance and creativity.

WHO is this minority?... remember that number I begin with?

 

133.005 represent 1,474200248720376 % from the total of 9.022.180 registered users on Nexus.

 

( https://www.change.org/p/valve-remove-the-paid-content-of-the-steam-workshop)

 

And from this number an even SMALLER minority trashed in every possible way those who with generosity and passion provided them with free mods.

Just read the endless violent, sarcastic or full of discontemptment comments from the days before...

And what did the NEXUS to stop this wave of violence?

 

NOTHING !!!

 

A comment like " anyway is not much about your work" would surely result in a ban in ANY circumstances but not this days... why?

I wonder if Nexus tolerated this wave of hate only to make modders to under appreciate themselves?...

 

1,474200248720376 %... that's the reality, the rest to 100 % don't care.

SO how is feeling the users community having such a low endorsement ratio?!...

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2015 by CaladanAnduril

[bloodstainer]

I would like to see if this whole deal opened people's eyes and lead to any extensive increase in modders receiving donations? I know it certainly made me more inclined to pay modders, I recently subscribed to Nexus and even if I hadn't played Skyrim for a very long time before this, I'm glad that I'm getting back into playing more of Skyrims with new amazing mods and if my donations can help these mods keep coming I hope that this might serve as an incentive for people to support modders and not just keep downloading and not giving a single f*#@ about actually helping with feedback/rating/commenting.

[bloodstainer]

In response to post #25007544. #25007814, #25014694 are all replies on the same post.

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.

bullpcp wrote: Much respect... but that was kinda... harsh.
Peace. :)

freedom613 wrote: Seems to be a great deal of Strawman in your post mate:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

You took a very complex point of view, and boiled it down to "people don't want to pay for stuff".

I agree with Fredom613, its a complex issue, I myself don't mind paying for mods but saying people were outraged because of that would be ignoring the entire issue.


I personally had the biggest issue with the fact that it was an unfair cut with a poorly system implemented completely wrong, adding paid mods to a game this old would only serve to divide the community and all I can hope for is that this deal led to more people donating to mods.

[darknetwork]

when i heard about these paid mods, some questions popped into my mind.

 

if skyrim UNP and BBP mod is a paid mod. do you think how much it would cost ? 5$? 10$ or just few cent ?

am i the only one who's thinking that paid mod will ended up as pirated mod just like the game itself ?

and also, does the devs of paid mods have some kind of obligation to keep the mod stable during next patch/expansion ?

Edited May 6, 2015 by darknetwork

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #25007544. #25007814, #25014694, #25016689 are all replies on the same post.

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.

bullpcp wrote: Much respect... but that was kinda... harsh.
Peace. :)

freedom613 wrote: Seems to be a great deal of Strawman in your post mate:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

You took a very complex point of view, and boiled it down to "people don't want to pay for stuff".

bloodstainer wrote: I agree with Fredom613, its a complex issue, I myself don't mind paying for mods but saying people were outraged because of that would be ignoring the entire issue.


I personally had the biggest issue with the fact that it was an unfair cut with a poorly system implemented completely wrong, adding paid mods to a game this old would only serve to divide the community and all I can hope for is that this deal led to more people donating to mods.

Troll. Someone's sock puppet account.

[greggorypeccary]

In response to post #25016629.

bloodstainer wrote: I would like to see if this whole deal opened people's eyes and lead to any extensive increase in modders receiving donations? I know it certainly made me more inclined to pay modders, I recently subscribed to Nexus and even if I hadn't played Skyrim for a very long time before this, I'm glad that I'm getting back into playing more of Skyrims with new amazing mods and if my donations can help these mods keep coming I hope that this might serve as an incentive for people to support modders and not just keep downloading and not giving a single f*#@ about actually helping with feedback/rating/commenting.

my mod has been out for about 1.5 years. I have had over 6000 people dl it. I have about 600 endorsements. I did not receive any donations until this started. I have since received one donation. After pay pal took their cut I got 66 cents. If that helps answer your question. Edited May 6, 2015 by greggorypeccary

[retnav98]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074, #25002429, #25002999, #25003089, #25006504, #25010279, #25012879, #25021179, #25021829, #25022179 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

bullpcp wrote: 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. :)

Wolvenlight wrote: Mr. Dave

The percentage cut was one of the most mentioned issues the community had with the whole paid mods thing. So it was the problem, but not for the reasons many would think, which was OPs point.

The modders who jumped on the pay bandwagon were a mix of people who either created unique assets or edited assets. Really, they had every right to edit game assets (as they were given that right by Bethesda, the creators of those assets.) Unless you're talking about modders taking assets from, say, immersive armors and putting them in their own mods, or creating their mod to be SKSE reliant and not giving proper credit and compensation. But that's a far cry from all of them.

I do agree that paid modding can divide a community with greed. It tends to stifle innovation when people are so concerned about competition that open resources and tutorials go away.

janishewski wrote: Really good insult, not much of an argument. Not worth responding to. And if you are so talented and require no help creating content, then what does this have to do with you anyway? As to who is using what, that is between the content creator and Bethesda and has nothing to do with you. If you don't like the paid content, then don't buy it and download a free alternative. Nothing in your argument counters anything I wrote.

CaladanAnduril wrote: Don't try to reason with them Jani, here ANY different opinion is covered under a smoke screen of words, because ALL of them try to elude the true issue:

- if you don't like it, don't buy it, period, nobody is forcing you, any other discussion is pure hypocrisy

Pay attention to the names, same names show up over and over again, the spearhead of a intolerant minority.

You have Dark0ne's own explanation of a timeline of events from his perspective, You have the Total biscuit interview...Discussing Impressions by people directly connected to those making the VALVE/Bethesda decisions and releases. Those aren't Random sources...nor are they "half-baked" opinions. They don't make the leap I have. Which may mean I am off-base...it may also be because they are in Business with these people and would be ending their career if they did.

Your need to see numbers and statistics is already satisfied and in front of you..Harbringe and Jason' have both sited variations that do not square with the 14%. You seem to have responded that if we are unable to accept the 14% the only thing one must assume is the improbable belief that STEAM is unaware of how many games were sold....which I say is not the ONLY conclusion one can or must consider.

If the 14% is in error or not up-to-date...then the percentage of people involved in modding is also incorrect. and we come back to the question repeatedly asked in the TB discussion...How could they get this so completely wrong and how are they so disconnected from the very Community they say they were trying to reward?

I never said modders don't have a right to make money...My very first post on this Forum boiled down to 2 points...People have seen this coming and we shouldn't be surprised at the move,we should be surprised at the manner it was done. My second point was that we should not judge people harshly for their decision to charge for their mods. I have not abandoned ANY position. Though I have come to publicly express regret for my choice to boycott.

I cited the practice to Ban users who requested refunds. You needed clarification as if I was the first to bring it up and had no grasp of cause and effect but you are perfectly willing to write it off as an anomaly attributed to the 1st 5 days of a launch (Growing Pains?). Evidently, I should simply ignore that this is a Company with more than a decade of experience in Sales.. 125 million active users and the source for 75% of ALL on-line PC Game sales.

I certainly seems that it is YOU who are abandoning and shifting.

in march of 2014 ARS Technica

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/

Estimated that 5.94 Million STEAM members owned Skyrim

that would suggest that PC game users were near 30% since at this point, Bethesda was reporting only 20 million total?
I have asked Harbringe but I'll ask you as well, Is it possible that Bethesda's sales numbers do not include Steam downloads?

What the site seems to be saying is their sampling has an up/down margin of error @ 3%...so even if we assume they are 3% high...that's still indicates more than 28% of total sales IF we are now including Skyrim Download sales as separate from Bethesda's.



Edited May 7, 2015 by retnav98

[Wolvenlight]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074, #25002429, #25002999, #25003089, #25006504, #25010279, #25012879, #25020594 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

bullpcp wrote: 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. :)

retnav98 wrote: You have Dark0ne's own explanation of a timeline of events from his perspective, You have the Total biscuit interview...Discussing Impressions by people directly connected to those making the VALVE/Bethesda decisions and releases. Those aren't Random sources...nor are they "half-baked" opinions. They don't make the leap I have. Which may mean I am off-base...it may also be because they are in Business with these people and would be ending their career if they did.

Your need to see numbers and statistics is already satisfied and in front of you..Harbringe and Jason' have both sited variations that do not square with the 14%. You seem to have responded that if we are unable to accept the 14% the only thing one must assume is the improbable belief that STEAM is unaware of how many games were sold....which I say is not the ONLY conclusion one can or must consider.

If the 14% is in error or not up-to-date...then the percentage of people involved in modding is also incorrect. and we come back to the question repeatedly asked in the TB discussion...How could they get this so completely wrong and how are they so disconnected from the very Community they say they were trying to reward?

I never said modders don't have a right to make money...My very first post on this Forum boiled down to 2 points...People have seen this coming and we shouldn't be surprised at the move,we should be surprised at the manner it was done. My second point was that we should not judge people harshly for their decision to charge for their mods. I have not abandoned ANY position. Though I have come to publicly express regret for my choice to boycott.

I cited the practice to Ban users who requested refunds. You needed clarification as if I was the first to bring it up and had no grasp of cause and effect but you are perfectly willing to write it off as an anomaly attributed to the 1st 5 days of a launch (Growing Pains?). Evidently, I should simply ignore that this is a Company with more than a decade of experience in Sales.. 125 million active users and the source for 75% of ALL on-line PC Game sales.

I certainly seems that it is YOU who are abandoning and shifting.

Mr. Dave

The percentage cut was one of the most mentioned issues the community had with the whole paid mods thing. So it was the problem, but not for the reasons many would think, which was OPs point.

The modders who jumped on the pay bandwagon were a mix of people who either created unique assets or edited assets. Really, they had every right to edit game assets (as they were given that right by Bethesda, the creators of those assets.) Unless you're talking about modders taking assets from, say, immersive armors and putting them in their own mods, or creating their mod to be SKSE reliant and not giving proper credit and compensation. But that's a far cry from all of them.

I do agree that paid modding can divide a community with greed. It tends to stifle innovation when people are so concerned about competition that open resources and tutorials go away.

[Wolvenlight]

In response to post #24966929. #24966984, #24967199, #24968504, #24969224, #24988424, #24989869, #24991699, #24996829, #25011074 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.

Tyerial12 wrote: 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

I'm glad you made this comment so that it showed your true self, gastovski.