Drawing a line under recent events and moving on

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24863434. #24863764 is also a reply to the same post.

sh0d4n wrote: All i've learned from this is that everyone worships money. Neither side is truly wrong, and by that I mean there are no real sides, just lots of people living different lives, and wanting an outcome that best sustains them. Of course the less well off were the ones that stood to lose the most in this.

As soon as that headline hit "Paid mods now available on Steam Workshop" someone, somewhere was going to get hurt, and that is my reasoning for why it should never have been done in the first place.

All we can do now is be sympathetic to those that got hurt the most in all of this. And yes lets move on and try to forget it for a time.

lereddit wrote: Sadly we lost a lot of good mods in the process. :/

Let's just hope that the next time Bethesda tries to implement paid modding (I'm sure they will) they choose a more intelligent approach

Your hyperbole aside.

People were already being denied the alternative opportunity to make money selling mods. Mod creators where expending thousands of hours, for what in some cases could have been sold for thousands of dollars in a few days, for no money and little recognition. Someone was and still is being hurt. People in this community simply took for granted that this was the appropriate state of affairs. You are ignoring the opportunity costs involved to those denied the opportunity to sale their mods.

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

[JacquesStrappe88]

The best part of this article was in the title... "Moving on."

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24863434. #24863764, #24865699 are all replies on the same post.

sh0d4n wrote: All i've learned from this is that everyone worships money. Neither side is truly wrong, and by that I mean there are no real sides, just lots of people living different lives, and wanting an outcome that best sustains them. Of course the less well off were the ones that stood to lose the most in this.

As soon as that headline hit "Paid mods now available on Steam Workshop" someone, somewhere was going to get hurt, and that is my reasoning for why it should never have been done in the first place.

All we can do now is be sympathetic to those that got hurt the most in all of this. And yes lets move on and try to forget it for a time.

lereddit wrote: Sadly we lost a lot of good mods in the process. :/

Let's just hope that the next time Bethesda tries to implement paid modding (I'm sure they will) they choose a more intelligent approach

bullpcp wrote: Your hyperbole aside.

People were already being denied the alternative opportunity to make money selling mods. Mod creators where expending thousands of hours, for what in some cases could have been sold for thousands of dollars in a few days, for no money and little recognition. Someone was and still is being hurt. People in this community simply took for granted that this was the appropriate state of affairs. You are ignoring the opportunity costs involved to those denied the opportunity to sale their mods.

Bullpcp, if mod authors are spending "thousands of hours" doing stuff they want to get paid for, then don't you think the mod scene is not for them? Up until a month ago there was no possibility of being paid, and yet mod authors were creating mods anyway. If all of a sudden it's such a huge hassle, then those people should quit, or put their efforts toward something they CAN get paid for (such as working at an actual game company).

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

[Vesuvius1745]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

[bullpcp]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866409 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out.

In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens. Edited May 1, 2015 by bullpcp

[Shadowmane01]

In response to post #24863819. #24864709, #24865374, #24865389, #24865449, #24865479, #24865704, #24865724, #24865869, #24866024, #24866189, #24866399 are all replies on the same post.

Shadowmane01 wrote: It has certainly been an interesting few days and has prodded me to do three things 1 become a premium member 2 make some donations 3 get involved on the forum. This is a great site long may it continue and a big thank you to all the mod authors for sharing there work.

Some of the comments made be people ( while expected this is the internet ) have been disappointing no one is simply entitled to free stuff and after giving it some thought I am in principle not against pay-for mods. After all if you go to an arts and crafts fare and some ammeter potters have set up a stall you don't see people rating and raving because there not being given some nice new plates for free.

While most of the venom has been directed at Beth/valve, mod makes particularly those involved in this fiasco must be feeling somewhat bruised. I think we as a community should work to heal the wounds and show some appreciation for all the great mods we have accesses to here on the nexus.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: The difference between this situation and your craft fair analogy, is that mod authors are utilizing Bethesda's Intellectual property from start to finish when creating their mod, and by clicking the "I AGREE" button to their EULA, you are entering into a contract with them--a contract that states they, and they alone, can dictate what can or cannot be done with your derivative creation. In this case, they decided to listen to their customers (the people who have bought Skyrim), who told them they didn't want a paid-for mod system on Steam.

For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted without getting licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the NFL asks them to stop selling them, they reply, "Well I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!" (of course in this case, Bethesda even provided the yarn).

Shadowmane01 wrote: Well yes but I was just making a simple point that mod makes have put time and effort in and no one simply has a right to free accesses to it. So if they want to make a few quid and beth are ok with that then why not ?. I do have concerns over it such as it stifling creativity on the other hand pay-for could well encourage modders to make some great mods that otherwise they wouldn't bother making.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 For your analogy to work, imagine someone selling a 49er's cap they knitted after GETTING licensing permission from the NFL, selling it at a craft fare, and then when the people you used to give the cap to for free saw this demanded they stop selling the caps, they reply, "Well I GOT THE LICENSING PERMISSION and I made it myself! I should be able to do whatever I want!"

bullpcp wrote: Shadowmane01 You point on the possibility of new and better mods is right on. People are so afraid of losing what exists that they are often blind to the possibilities of change.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Well, Bullpcp, the NFL can revoke those licensing agreements at any time and for any reason. The Corporation giveth, and the Corporation can taketh away. Be wary of such possibilities before feeding the snake your dinner.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: If profit is introduced, we get better mods you say? The Nexus for years has been flooded by "amateur" mods that are heads above the mediocre DLCs Bethesda has peddled to us. If profit makes everything so much better, why were their DLCs such garbage? I think one can make a very good case that profit makes things WORSE. Let me explain:

The author of Falskaar, for example, (and forget that he was using it on his resume because that is irrelevant, and I can also list dozens of other mods just as good where the author wasn't trying to get a job), created a very dynamic and high quality expansion. If he had been punching the clock at Bethesda, he would have had a deadline, been under time constraints, and most likely would have left out many details and features he otherwise was able to put in. If Skyrim is any indication, he likely also wouldn't have had time to fix all the bugs either. Bethesda, because of that whole "profit" thing, released a bud-riddled and unfinished product that required at least 6 more months of development. Vanilla Skyrim is barely playable without a bunch of mods, and it has all the trappings of a poorly (and quickly) done console port.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 So you admit your analogy was erroneous... good.

Vesuvius1745 wrote: No, my analogy was spot on. Thank you for playing though.

bullpcp wrote: Vesuvius1745 You may not have liked the unmodified Skyrim game but it was a HUGE commercial success BEFORE the modding community got a hold of it. There are approximately 2 or 3 DLC level mods for Skyrim that I'm aware of. Somehow you are under the impression by incentivising people to make higher quality mods to sale you would end up with fewer high quality DLC level mods because the same people that did it for free wouldn't do that and more for money... This is your logic?

Vesuvius1745 wrote: Yes, Skyrim WAS a commercial success. Two reasons:

1) Console users notoriously have low standards.

2) And on the PC, with the declining state of the game industry (as we have seen with Bethesda), if you put a mediocre product next to a bunch of crappy ones, that mediocre product is going to look good in comparison. Looking good, and being good, are two different things.

And many of those authors of high quality mods have stated they will never do it for profit, so yes, that is my logic. There are also programmers with a skillset a few thousand times higher than is required for a mere game mod (such as the authors of ENB, SKSE etc.) who have also proclaimed they will never do it for a profit.

bullpcp wrote: In your above analogy you mentioned the cap crafter, ostensibly the modder, not getting permission from the NFL, ostensibly the license holder Bethesda, and then the NFL, again Bethesda, asking the crafter, the modder, to stop. In reality for your analogy to be apt the cap crafters, modders, in your analogy not only got permission from the NFL, Bethesda, but were actively sought out and asked to create and sell their caps, mods. And it was not the NFL, Bethesda, but the cap consumers, not customers as they received the caps for free, that cried out for them to stop.

Please indicate where and how I have misinterpreted your analogy. If not just admit in your haste you provided an inaccurate analogy. It happens. BTW you where never in the game.

Well I wouldn't agree that DG and DB were garbage I enjoyed both but I do share your concerns over the creativity that pay=for could negatively affect in mods. The counter argument would be that it could positively encourage modders to create great mods. True they may want to chuck out a mod as fast as possible to make a fast quid. Yet garbage is soon identified as garbage and modders wouldn't be under any corporate deadline constraints. The truth is that as yet we just don't know what the result of pay-for would be as it was not given enough time to play out. Edited May 1, 2015 by Shadowmane01