Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[retnav98]

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

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.

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.

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.

@Caladanaldur,

This is literally the last people still talking about paymods...and that's because most people realize there's nothing to talk about...nothing being gained...even verifying that the words/numbers don't match the actions doesn't change anyone's mind.

I was just reading Gabe and Robin's exchange on reddit...

[–]NexusDark0ne 2284 points 11 days ago*
If there's anyone who understands your plight in being pressured in to more conservative policing of content based on personal views, beliefs and opinions, it's me. The Nexus is known to host some of the most liberal content out there and we're lambasted for it on many sides. Some game devs won't even touch us because of it. But my personal opinion remains the same, irrespective of whether I agree with or like the content (and there's plenty of stuff on the Nexus I'm really not a fan of), if I take down one file for insulting certain sensitivities, where do I draw the line? Who's line? My line? Your line? So yeah, you're preaching to the choir on that one.
However, we're not talking about limiting types of content, we're talking about the functionality of Steam being used to fundamentally change a principle tenet of the modding community that's existed since the very beginning. That is, the principle that the sharing of mods can be free and open to everyone, if they so wish, and that that choice remains squarely in the hands of the people who develop those mods. Please, do not misunderstand me, I believe I've made myself clear that if certain mod platforms want to explore paid modding then they can, for better or for worse, but I am categorically against the concept of mods only being allowed to be shared online, with others, through only one platform. I'm against the concept of modders not having a choice. While a lot of melodrama has ensued from Valve and Bethesda's actions this week, I absolutely believe that you would be destroying a key pillar of modding if you were to allow your service to be used in such a way.
I appreciate you cannot dictate what developers do outside and off of Steams services, but Steam is Valve's service, and you can control how your service is used.
permalinkparent
[–]GabeNewellBellevueCONFIRMED VALVE CEO 1337 points 11 days ago
the principle that the sharing of mods can be free and open to everyone
Completely 100% agree.

What's he agreeing 100% to?....everything Robin said?...or just the part about controlling STEAM?

You and a good number of modders will continue to live in this moment...to harbor anger and resentment...and many users including you, will realize that their free mods, no longer have the quality that we ALL once enjoyed...this will remind you of your resentment and it becomes self-perpetuating....neither user nor modder wins...and the one who comes away unscathed...is the one sitting in a coffee shop in Bellvue sipping a Latte and casually dismissing 3400 emails.

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #25025599. #25028149, #25035034 are all replies on the same post.

Ariranha wrote: Why don't the publishers themselves pay the modders? After all, many people wouldn't even buy/play some games if it wasn't for the mods. At least the non-hyped gamers, who don't go preordering based on CGI and ads. The publishers profit with the modding community, so they could themselves pay the modders.

- OR -

The gamers could pay the modders as a whole, in advance.

An example on how this could be made: The publishers sell the game and a separate modding tool. Without the modding tool, the gamer wouldn't be able to use mods. The money for the game would go to the companies that made it and the money for the modding tool would go to a common fund for modders. The money on the fund would be shared, periodically, among the registered modders.

"But how would they share the money?" Each modder would receive a fixed amount for each "thumbs up" on its mod. After a certain amount of thumbs, the mod would be evaluated by the company that made the game. Based on this evaluation, the modder would receive a variable amount. Top modders would receive a third amount as a bonus.

"Oh, but this is highly subjective!" As all other criteria would be.

"Oh, but this would be too complex!" As all other paid system to modders would be.

Modders would receive for the good work, the donate button would still exist, the opportunity to release a free mod would still exist, Nexus would still exist, the gamer would still be able to choose to play with or without mods and pay in advance, no part involved in the relation would be treated unfairly.

MrBadboi wrote: Like many mods, they are pieces of art, many times out of passion. When it comes to adding money to the equation. It only complicates things. Like how money and family can complicate things and end up ruining relationships between each other. I'm sure many of us have experienced this.

It would end up dividing the community for those who would want others to pay for their work. No one likes change, I strongly believe things should stay the way they are. If individuals enjoyed a mod enough and consider the time and effort that went in to creating it. Let them self's decide how much they are willing to donate, if they wish to contribute at all financially.

If certain individual's create mods and expect to be paid. Your in the wrong community. Mods should loves of labor not profit.

Ghatto wrote: Pretty simple answer is that it's not a good return on investment.

Even with a well thought out hypothetical like you've provided, it's pretty clear to me that any form of free vs. paid mods would have a remarkable difference in community size. Simply, there'll be a much much lower number of modders and mod-users in any case where mods or mod tools are paid for. A community like here on the Nexus would be a shadow of its current self.

The only situation that will have the least impact is your first hypothetical: where mods and tools are still free, but the publisher pays some modders for whatever arbitrary reason. Since all participants have the same starting point, there's less barriers to entry. However they payments would have to be after the fact (after free mod publish) in order to avoid comparing the releases to licensed DLC and all the employment, and product qualification legalities that come with it. The only way I can think of how this would backfire badly is if the publisher decided to offset payments to modders by having an increased game purchase price (higher barrier to entry).

You are missing a third option: DO NOTHING. The "system" has worked fine for over a decade without finances and pencil pushing brought into it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But more than that, it's not about a better system, it's about a worse one. Steam was flooded with garbage mods the moment this went up. There were some good mods, but even those had to be stripped down to avoid using resources "borrowed" from others. People were literally paying for mods they can now get for free on the Nexus and which are of higher quality than the pay-for version. In an "open source" community where everybody "borrows" from everybody else, something like this is difficult to implement without killing the golden goose.

So again: the current system isn't broke, and has worked great for over 10 years going all the way back to Morrowind. If something is working great--you leave it alone.

[MrBadboi]

In response to post #25025599. #25028149, #25035034, #25047559 are all replies on the same post.

Ariranha wrote: Why don't the publishers themselves pay the modders? After all, many people wouldn't even buy/play some games if it wasn't for the mods. At least the non-hyped gamers, who don't go preordering based on CGI and ads. The publishers profit with the modding community, so they could themselves pay the modders.

- OR -

The gamers could pay the modders as a whole, in advance.

An example on how this could be made: The publishers sell the game and a separate modding tool. Without the modding tool, the gamer wouldn't be able to use mods. The money for the game would go to the companies that made it and the money for the modding tool would go to a common fund for modders. The money on the fund would be shared, periodically, among the registered modders.

"But how would they share the money?" Each modder would receive a fixed amount for each "thumbs up" on its mod. After a certain amount of thumbs, the mod would be evaluated by the company that made the game. Based on this evaluation, the modder would receive a variable amount. Top modders would receive a third amount as a bonus.

"Oh, but this is highly subjective!" As all other criteria would be.

"Oh, but this would be too complex!" As all other paid system to modders would be.

Modders would receive for the good work, the donate button would still exist, the opportunity to release a free mod would still exist, Nexus would still exist, the gamer would still be able to choose to play with or without mods and pay in advance, no part involved in the relation would be treated unfairly.

MrBadboi wrote: Like many mods, they are pieces of art, many times out of passion. When it comes to adding money to the equation. It only complicates things. Like how money and family can complicate things and end up ruining relationships between each other. I'm sure many of us have experienced this.

It would end up dividing the community for those who would want others to pay for their work. No one likes change, I strongly believe things should stay the way they are. If individuals enjoyed a mod enough and consider the time and effort that went in to creating it. Let them self's decide how much they are willing to donate, if they wish to contribute at all financially.

If certain individual's create mods and expect to be paid. Your in the wrong community. Mods should loves of labor not profit.

Ghatto wrote: Pretty simple answer is that it's not a good return on investment.

Even with a well thought out hypothetical like you've provided, it's pretty clear to me that any form of free vs. paid mods would have a remarkable difference in community size. Simply, there'll be a much much lower number of modders and mod-users in any case where mods or mod tools are paid for. A community like here on the Nexus would be a shadow of its current self.

The only situation that will have the least impact is your first hypothetical: where mods and tools are still free, but the publisher pays some modders for whatever arbitrary reason. Since all participants have the same starting point, there's less barriers to entry. However they payments would have to be after the fact (after free mod publish) in order to avoid comparing the releases to licensed DLC and all the employment, and product qualification legalities that come with it. The only way I can think of how this would backfire badly is if the publisher decided to offset payments to modders by having an increased game purchase price (higher barrier to entry).

Vesuvius1745 wrote: You are missing a third option: DO NOTHING. The "system" has worked fine for over a decade without finances and pencil pushing brought into it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But more than that, it's not about a better system, it's about a worse one. Steam was flooded with garbage mods the moment this went up. There were some good mods, but even those had to be stripped down to avoid using resources "borrowed" from others. People were literally paying for mods they can now get for free on the Nexus and which are of higher quality than the pay-for version. In an "open source" community where everybody "borrows" from everybody else, something like this is difficult to implement without killing the golden goose.

So again: the current system isn't broke, and has worked great for over 10 years going all the way back to Morrowind. If something is working great--you leave it alone.

As you explained, it only creates even more complications. I'm not against people who would like to earn some revenue from their work if possible, I'll state that.

But this who subject is very touchy, things should of been left alone from the start. When ever money gets involved everything ends up getting complicated. We could go in to a long debate about the subject but I' rather not haha..

If it works why change it, everything was fine before steam ever allowed such an option. It's created so much chaos and controversy over the matter. If Bethesda really wants to profit off talented modders. Let them make official DLC's of these mods, that's the only way i see this working, and the proper cuts going to any tools used. For copyright issues, pirating off others has always been around and always will be around, get use to it.

Creating even more DRM around the issue will just create more useless restrictions.

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #25025599. #25028149, #25035034, #25047559, #25047774 are all replies on the same post.

Ariranha wrote: Why don't the publishers themselves pay the modders? After all, many people wouldn't even buy/play some games if it wasn't for the mods. At least the non-hyped gamers, who don't go preordering based on CGI and ads. The publishers profit with the modding community, so they could themselves pay the modders.

- OR -

The gamers could pay the modders as a whole, in advance.

An example on how this could be made: The publishers sell the game and a separate modding tool. Without the modding tool, the gamer wouldn't be able to use mods. The money for the game would go to the companies that made it and the money for the modding tool would go to a common fund for modders. The money on the fund would be shared, periodically, among the registered modders.

"But how would they share the money?" Each modder would receive a fixed amount for each "thumbs up" on its mod. After a certain amount of thumbs, the mod would be evaluated by the company that made the game. Based on this evaluation, the modder would receive a variable amount. Top modders would receive a third amount as a bonus.

"Oh, but this is highly subjective!" As all other criteria would be.

"Oh, but this would be too complex!" As all other paid system to modders would be.

Modders would receive for the good work, the donate button would still exist, the opportunity to release a free mod would still exist, Nexus would still exist, the gamer would still be able to choose to play with or without mods and pay in advance, no part involved in the relation would be treated unfairly.

MrBadboi wrote: Like many mods, they are pieces of art, many times out of passion. When it comes to adding money to the equation. It only complicates things. Like how money and family can complicate things and end up ruining relationships between each other. I'm sure many of us have experienced this.

It would end up dividing the community for those who would want others to pay for their work. No one likes change, I strongly believe things should stay the way they are. If individuals enjoyed a mod enough and consider the time and effort that went in to creating it. Let them self's decide how much they are willing to donate, if they wish to contribute at all financially.

If certain individual's create mods and expect to be paid. Your in the wrong community. Mods should loves of labor not profit.

Ghatto wrote: Pretty simple answer is that it's not a good return on investment.

Even with a well thought out hypothetical like you've provided, it's pretty clear to me that any form of free vs. paid mods would have a remarkable difference in community size. Simply, there'll be a much much lower number of modders and mod-users in any case where mods or mod tools are paid for. A community like here on the Nexus would be a shadow of its current self.

The only situation that will have the least impact is your first hypothetical: where mods and tools are still free, but the publisher pays some modders for whatever arbitrary reason. Since all participants have the same starting point, there's less barriers to entry. However they payments would have to be after the fact (after free mod publish) in order to avoid comparing the releases to licensed DLC and all the employment, and product qualification legalities that come with it. The only way I can think of how this would backfire badly is if the publisher decided to offset payments to modders by having an increased game purchase price (higher barrier to entry).

Vesuvius1745 wrote: You are missing a third option: DO NOTHING. The "system" has worked fine for over a decade without finances and pencil pushing brought into it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But more than that, it's not about a better system, it's about a worse one. Steam was flooded with garbage mods the moment this went up. There were some good mods, but even those had to be stripped down to avoid using resources "borrowed" from others. People were literally paying for mods they can now get for free on the Nexus and which are of higher quality than the pay-for version. In an "open source" community where everybody "borrows" from everybody else, something like this is difficult to implement without killing the golden goose.

So again: the current system isn't broke, and has worked great for over 10 years going all the way back to Morrowind. If something is working great--you leave it alone.

MrBadboi wrote: As you explained, it only creates even more complications. I'm not against people who would like to earn some revenue from their work if possible, I'll state that.

But this who subject is very touchy, things should of been left alone from the start. When ever money gets involved everything ends up getting complicated. We could go in to a long debate about the subject but I' rather not haha..

If it works why change it, everything was fine before steam ever allowed such an option. It's created so much chaos and controversy over the matter. If Bethesda really wants to profit off talented modders. Let them make official DLC's of these mods, that's the only way i see this working, and the proper cuts going to any tools used. For copyright issues, pirating off others has always been around and always will be around, get use to it.

Creating even more DRM around the issue will just create more useless restrictions.

If Bethesdsa REALLY gave a carp about modders, they'd contract the talented ones out to create DLC content for them. But of course they don't. They'd rather the modders do all the work, deal with all the headaches, while Bethesda got most of the money.

[AccessionSoft]

In response to post #25025599. #25028149, #25035034, #25047559, #25047774, #25048554 are all replies on the same post.

Ariranha wrote: Why don't the publishers themselves pay the modders? After all, many people wouldn't even buy/play some games if it wasn't for the mods. At least the non-hyped gamers, who don't go preordering based on CGI and ads. The publishers profit with the modding community, so they could themselves pay the modders.

- OR -

The gamers could pay the modders as a whole, in advance.

An example on how this could be made: The publishers sell the game and a separate modding tool. Without the modding tool, the gamer wouldn't be able to use mods. The money for the game would go to the companies that made it and the money for the modding tool would go to a common fund for modders. The money on the fund would be shared, periodically, among the registered modders.

"But how would they share the money?" Each modder would receive a fixed amount for each "thumbs up" on its mod. After a certain amount of thumbs, the mod would be evaluated by the company that made the game. Based on this evaluation, the modder would receive a variable amount. Top modders would receive a third amount as a bonus.

"Oh, but this is highly subjective!" As all other criteria would be.

"Oh, but this would be too complex!" As all other paid system to modders would be.

Modders would receive for the good work, the donate button would still exist, the opportunity to release a free mod would still exist, Nexus would still exist, the gamer would still be able to choose to play with or without mods and pay in advance, no part involved in the relation would be treated unfairly.

MrBadboi wrote: Like many mods, they are pieces of art, many times out of passion. When it comes to adding money to the equation. It only complicates things. Like how money and family can complicate things and end up ruining relationships between each other. I'm sure many of us have experienced this.

It would end up dividing the community for those who would want others to pay for their work. No one likes change, I strongly believe things should stay the way they are. If individuals enjoyed a mod enough and consider the time and effort that went in to creating it. Let them self's decide how much they are willing to donate, if they wish to contribute at all financially.

If certain individual's create mods and expect to be paid. Your in the wrong community. Mods should loves of labor not profit.

Ghatto wrote: Pretty simple answer is that it's not a good return on investment.

Even with a well thought out hypothetical like you've provided, it's pretty clear to me that any form of free vs. paid mods would have a remarkable difference in community size. Simply, there'll be a much much lower number of modders and mod-users in any case where mods or mod tools are paid for. A community like here on the Nexus would be a shadow of its current self.

The only situation that will have the least impact is your first hypothetical: where mods and tools are still free, but the publisher pays some modders for whatever arbitrary reason. Since all participants have the same starting point, there's less barriers to entry. However they payments would have to be after the fact (after free mod publish) in order to avoid comparing the releases to licensed DLC and all the employment, and product qualification legalities that come with it. The only way I can think of how this would backfire badly is if the publisher decided to offset payments to modders by having an increased game purchase price (higher barrier to entry).

Vesuvius1745 wrote: You are missing a third option: DO NOTHING. The "system" has worked fine for over a decade without finances and pencil pushing brought into it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But more than that, it's not about a better system, it's about a worse one. Steam was flooded with garbage mods the moment this went up. There were some good mods, but even those had to be stripped down to avoid using resources "borrowed" from others. People were literally paying for mods they can now get for free on the Nexus and which are of higher quality than the pay-for version. In an "open source" community where everybody "borrows" from everybody else, something like this is difficult to implement without killing the golden goose.

So again: the current system isn't broke, and has worked great for over 10 years going all the way back to Morrowind. If something is working great--you leave it alone.

MrBadboi wrote: As you explained, it only creates even more complications. I'm not against people who would like to earn some revenue from their work if possible, I'll state that.

But this who subject is very touchy, things should of been left alone from the start. When ever money gets involved everything ends up getting complicated. We could go in to a long debate about the subject but I' rather not haha..

If it works why change it, everything was fine before steam ever allowed such an option. It's created so much chaos and controversy over the matter. If Bethesda really wants to profit off talented modders. Let them make official DLC's of these mods, that's the only way i see this working, and the proper cuts going to any tools used. For copyright issues, pirating off others has always been around and always will be around, get use to it.

Creating even more DRM around the issue will just create more useless restrictions.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If Bethesdsa REALLY gave a carp about modders, they'd contract the talented ones out to create DLC content for them. But of course they don't. They'd rather the modders do all the work, deal with all the headaches, while Bethesda got most of the money.

What do you guys think of a system like this?

<kink removed>

I think you were told not to post it in another thread AND in pm so you can say goodbye to your account. - Micalov.

The community can decide to donate directly to the artists to compensate them for their time.

Another question: How many people would make a single dungeon for $50?

[moxica]

This whole thing was sad. It has soured my feelings towards Bethesda and I never did like Steam/Valve.

It was handled poorly, responded to poorly by players and modders alike, and the community that I once loved is all messed up. It doesn't feel like "home" anymore.

I'm just one nobody and I'm not making a statement pro or con paying for mods, Bethesda, Valve/Steam or anything, but I'm done with TES.

One plus that has come out of this is that it has encouraged me to take the handful of modding skills that I've developed since the early days of Oblivion and apply them to creating my own, simple games with another engine, for myself and my friends. I am excited to get started and to start creating rather than adding to or altering something that's already there. I'm happy about that.

But, I feel like something good was ruined by all of this and for that, I'm sad...

[Loveblanket]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074, #25002429, #25002999, #25003089, #25006504, #25010279, #25012879, #25020594, #25021179, #25021829, #25022179, #25042124 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.

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.

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.

retnav98 wrote: @Caladanaldur,

This is literally the last people still talking about paymods...and that's because most people realize there's nothing to talk about...nothing being gained...even verifying that the words/numbers don't match the actions doesn't change anyone's mind.

I was just reading Gabe and Robin's exchange on reddit...

[–]NexusDark0ne 2284 points 11 days ago*
If there's anyone who understands your plight in being pressured in to more conservative policing of content based on personal views, beliefs and opinions, it's me. The Nexus is known to host some of the most liberal content out there and we're lambasted for it on many sides. Some game devs won't even touch us because of it. But my personal opinion remains the same, irrespective of whether I agree with or like the content (and there's plenty of stuff on the Nexus I'm really not a fan of), if I take down one file for insulting certain sensitivities, where do I draw the line? Who's line? My line? Your line? So yeah, you're preaching to the choir on that one.
However, we're not talking about limiting types of content, we're talking about the functionality of Steam being used to fundamentally change a principle tenet of the modding community that's existed since the very beginning. That is, the principle that the sharing of mods can be free and open to everyone, if they so wish, and that that choice remains squarely in the hands of the people who develop those mods. Please, do not misunderstand me, I believe I've made myself clear that if certain mod platforms want to explore paid modding then they can, for better or for worse, but I am categorically against the concept of mods only being allowed to be shared online, with others, through only one platform. I'm against the concept of modders not having a choice. While a lot of melodrama has ensued from Valve and Bethesda's actions this week, I absolutely believe that you would be destroying a key pillar of modding if you were to allow your service to be used in such a way.
I appreciate you cannot dictate what developers do outside and off of Steams services, but Steam is Valve's service, and you can control how your service is used.
permalinkparent
[–]GabeNewellBellevueCONFIRMED VALVE CEO 1337 points 11 days ago
the principle that the sharing of mods can be free and open to everyone
Completely 100% agree.

What's he agreeing 100% to?....everything Robin said?...or just the part about controlling STEAM?

You and a good number of modders will continue to live in this moment...to harbor anger and resentment...and many users including you, will realize that their free mods, no longer have the quality that we ALL once enjoyed...this will remind you of your resentment and it becomes self-perpetuating....neither user nor modder wins...and the one who comes away unscathed...is the one sitting in a coffee shop in Bellvue sipping a Latte and casually dismissing 3400 emails.

I'll take your advice. Cheers brother, and thanks for the support.

[sycogsp]

give this chica a hanky

[doomdoging]

Change is scary! AHHHHH!

[Bretwalda]

In response to post #24997179. #24997739, #25000969, #25001074, #25002429, #25002999, #25003089, #25006504, #25010279, #25012879, #25020594, #25021179, #25021829, #25022179, #25042124, #25059069 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.

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.

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.

retnav98 wrote: @Caladanaldur,

This is literally the last people still talking about paymods...and that's because most people realize there's nothing to talk about...nothing being gained...even verifying that the words/numbers don't match the actions doesn't change anyone's mind.

I was just reading Gabe and Robin's exchange on reddit...

[–]NexusDark0ne 2284 points 11 days ago*
If there's anyone who understands your plight in being pressured in to more conservative policing of content based on personal views, beliefs and opinions, it's me. The Nexus is known to host some of the most liberal content out there and we're lambasted for it on many sides. Some game devs won't even touch us because of it. But my personal opinion remains the same, irrespective of whether I agree with or like the content (and there's plenty of stuff on the Nexus I'm really not a fan of), if I take down one file for insulting certain sensitivities, where do I draw the line? Who's line? My line? Your line? So yeah, you're preaching to the choir on that one.
However, we're not talking about limiting types of content, we're talking about the functionality of Steam being used to fundamentally change a principle tenet of the modding community that's existed since the very beginning. That is, the principle that the sharing of mods can be free and open to everyone, if they so wish, and that that choice remains squarely in the hands of the people who develop those mods. Please, do not misunderstand me, I believe I've made myself clear that if certain mod platforms want to explore paid modding then they can, for better or for worse, but I am categorically against the concept of mods only being allowed to be shared online, with others, through only one platform. I'm against the concept of modders not having a choice. While a lot of melodrama has ensued from Valve and Bethesda's actions this week, I absolutely believe that you would be destroying a key pillar of modding if you were to allow your service to be used in such a way.
I appreciate you cannot dictate what developers do outside and off of Steams services, but Steam is Valve's service, and you can control how your service is used.
permalinkparent
[–]GabeNewellBellevueCONFIRMED VALVE CEO 1337 points 11 days ago
the principle that the sharing of mods can be free and open to everyone
Completely 100% agree.

What's he agreeing 100% to?....everything Robin said?...or just the part about controlling STEAM?

You and a good number of modders will continue to live in this moment...to harbor anger and resentment...and many users including you, will realize that their free mods, no longer have the quality that we ALL once enjoyed...this will remind you of your resentment and it becomes self-perpetuating....neither user nor modder wins...and the one who comes away unscathed...is the one sitting in a coffee shop in Bellvue sipping a Latte and casually dismissing 3400 emails.

janishewski wrote: I'll take your advice. Cheers brother, and thanks for the support.

Donations aren't enough, and I would easily accept paid mods to keep mod authors interested in tweaking things, and responding on tech support posts. I don't think all gamers today are young, poor college kids. Many oldsters like me (50) will pay for a premium products we enjoy - cars, homes, cellphones, and video games.

The problem was just that, making sure mods that are paid for are premium mods, not just a bunch of retextured gear or something... Some coding and new content should be a requisite.

Maybe Valve needs to roll this out from the start with a fresh new IP.