Why we can't use Patreon, and talking about donations and doing more to support mod authors

[Dark0ne]

In response to post #28634659.

schlangster wrote: For me, the amount of donations had actually increased after the popup was added.

Then, the popup was changed to only show for repeat downloads. Mods like SkyUI, which are below the 2MB file size limit, can be downloaded without logging in or creating an account. Thus, for those cases the repeat download thing never triggers, because they are not tracked. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but when I tested it with a logged out browser instance, I just never get the popup, no matter how many times I download. As a result, this significantly reduced the number of donations again from the day the change was applied.

I brought it up repeatedly and initially had good faith that it would be addressed, because that was not even the intended effect of this change. However, nothing happened for 3-4 months, and at this point it doesn't matter anymore anyway. It would have been such a simple thing to fix and it would have made a big difference for me (and a few others).

What I expect based on this experience is that no matter what anyone writes, unless Bethesda try paid modding again, nobody is going to give a damn about improving the donation system, just like it was before.

This was changed a while back so that repeat downloaders from people who aren't logged in (who are tracked by their IP address, to maintain a relatively stable "Unique downloaders" stat) would be shown the donation window like any logged in user would, thus "fixing" the issue you mentioned.

Are you saying you're not seeing that happen in your tests? Because I am in mine. Edited September 12, 2015 by Dark0ne

[schlangster]

In response to post #28634659. #28634974 is also a reply to the same post.

schlangster wrote: For me, the amount of donations had actually increased after the popup was added.

Then, the popup was changed to only show for repeat downloads. Mods like SkyUI, which are below the 2MB file size limit, can be downloaded without logging in or creating an account. Thus, for those cases the repeat download thing never triggers, because they are not tracked. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but when I tested it with a logged out browser instance, I just never get the popup, no matter how many times I download. As a result, this significantly reduced the number of donations again from the day the change was applied.

I brought it up repeatedly and initially had good faith that it would be addressed, because that was not even the intended effect of this change. However, nothing happened for 3-4 months, and at this point it doesn't matter anymore anyway. It would have been such a simple thing to fix and it would have made a big difference for me (and a few others).

What I expect based on this experience is that no matter what anyone writes, unless Bethesda try paid modding again, nobody is going to give a damn about improving the donation system, just like it was before.

Dark0ne wrote: This was changed a while back so that repeat downloaders from people who aren't logged in (who are tracked by their IP address, to maintain a relatively stable "Unique downloaders" stat) would be shown the donation window like any logged in user would, thus "fixing" the issue you mentioned.

Are you saying you're not seeing that happen in your tests? Because I am in mine.

I just tested it again with Chrome and IE, downloaded the same archive several times in a row but never got the donation prompt.

(E: The file I tested with was http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/3863/ file version 5.1, manual download.) Edited September 12, 2015 by schlangster

[ShyViolets]

In response to post #28618394.

bcofer wrote: My humble suggestion: Duplicate the Donate! pop-up/widget to trigger when I hit Endorse.

I read all six pages, and realize that the percentage of Endorsers is low, but right now the donate request just gets triggered and shows up at the wrong time.

I just downloaded an armor (main file) and Bodyslide2 file (extra file).

Nexus asked me to donate to a mod that I haven't even downloaded yet.

After I download, unzip, install, play with and evaluate, make sure that it gets along well with other mods, and I like it, I may come back to endorse it.

Then ask me for money. If it's a great mod, I much more likely to think "Hey, thanks for the great mod! Here, go buy yourself a pint or something."

Also, NMM does a pretty good job of telling me if I have endorsed a mod. Could it be modified to show a $$ sign (or whatever currency you use) for mods I've both endorsed and donated to?

Seconding this. Making another opportunity for donation possible will only help, especially since authors aren't allowed to ask themselves.

I think both on download and endorsement would be great. Maybe even brainstorm other ways for nexus to remind people to donate and/or endorse. Because people should be saying thank yours either verbally or monetarily to authors. It might get annoying but people can deal with that for something that is offered essentially free. Especially if you want to keep people motivated to continue to offer something to you freely...say thank you one way or another. And I really think people want to say thank you but it's something that's easy to forget to say nowadays. I forget and I'm sure others do too, but since the pop up I've been more aware.

I see the issues of having authors ask on their pages for donations but I feel if they are told they can't advocate for themselves then there should be multiple instances where nexus is advocating for them. Edited September 12, 2015 by Viviolay

[Arthmoor]

In response to post #28634659. #28634974, #28635349 are all replies on the same post.

schlangster wrote: For me, the amount of donations had actually increased after the popup was added.

Then, the popup was changed to only show for repeat downloads. Mods like SkyUI, which are below the 2MB file size limit, can be downloaded without logging in or creating an account. Thus, for those cases the repeat download thing never triggers, because they are not tracked. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but when I tested it with a logged out browser instance, I just never get the popup, no matter how many times I download. As a result, this significantly reduced the number of donations again from the day the change was applied.

I brought it up repeatedly and initially had good faith that it would be addressed, because that was not even the intended effect of this change. However, nothing happened for 3-4 months, and at this point it doesn't matter anymore anyway. It would have been such a simple thing to fix and it would have made a big difference for me (and a few others).

What I expect based on this experience is that no matter what anyone writes, unless Bethesda try paid modding again, nobody is going to give a damn about improving the donation system, just like it was before.

Dark0ne wrote: This was changed a while back so that repeat downloaders from people who aren't logged in (who are tracked by their IP address, to maintain a relatively stable "Unique downloaders" stat) would be shown the donation window like any logged in user would, thus "fixing" the issue you mentioned.

Are you saying you're not seeing that happen in your tests? Because I am in mine.

schlangster wrote: I just tested it again with Chrome and IE, downloaded the same archive several times in a row but never got the donation prompt.

(E: The file I tested with was http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/3863/ file version 5.1, manual download.)

Confirming in IE, not logged on, only the "Continue with Download" prompt comes up when the SKSE requirement is presented. No donation information at all shows up.

Switching to my Pale Moon session while logged in, the donations window pops up after the file requirements menu is done.

[fraquar]

In response to post #28627094.

mcguffin wrote: Donation was the hypocritical answer to the paid mod system in steam.
Players said, "dont sell mods, give us a way to donate."
What a joke.

Todays, around the internet, only containers get money:
Sell devices, you get everything.
Sell content, you are screwed.
Not only mod, but anything: music, arts, design, movies... anything that is content is screwed.

People says they can't give anything, but they have internet... and, here, a gaming computer.
The reality is that most people doesnt even bother to simply says something ("thank you" or an endorsement).
They just dont give a s#*! of anything
They take. Period.

If 1,000 people donated just $1.00 to a mod author, that's $100,000 (crazy money). So the real question is what is an acceptable amount if I did donate that wouldn't piss people like you (a modder who sounds like he's expecting to be paid) off?

Correction: Had too much to drink, that $1,000 but hopefully you get my point when there are 1,000,000 people plus downloading a mod.

Here's my problem with this - there are "unofficial" mods that the rest of the modders consider "official". Those "unofficial" mods are constantly changing, making mods I've paid for that I really like eventually break the game - lest I become a "shadetree modder" myself fixing the very mods I've paid for?

Another question, is a language conversion of an existing mod considered modding? If so, which author is entitled to X share of the donation?

Edited September 12, 2015 by fraquar

[Arthmoor]

In response to post #28622159. #28626849 is also a reply to the same post.

simtam wrote:

 

Oh yeah there's just so many free skins in Counter Strike GO I can use.

 

Sounds like you feel entitled :ermm:

Ghatto wrote: Sounds like the same 'flavour of the month' response to peoples concerns these days. How about actually forming an argument instead of an ad hominem.

I'm not entitled to free skins. What I am though is old enough to remember how FUN games like Counterstrike were with free skins, sprays, mods etc. Yeah most of it's still there: maps, modes and the like, but if I want to spray a funny pic? Pay. Want a different colour gun? Pay. Have a little music? Pay.

And really I can't stop the devs from doing that, but you did say
"For games where paid mods are allowed, there is - and it ever will be - a full spectrum of free mods, full-priced mods, discounted mods, free demo-versions of full payable mods, and so on - whatever price discrimination marketing invented."

and I gave an example of where there was no free version.

Yet nothing is stopping someone from providing a free version of that in such a game. The ability is still there. If nobody is actually providing it, that would tell me the market for that game has moved on and accepted that pay mods are fine.

Clearly nobody has a problem with it when it's Valve's own stuff, cause they're doing it on all sorts of games. God forbid someone dare think to offer TES and/or Fallout modders the same opportunity.

If you want to know where the whole "entitlement syndrome" thing comes from, you need only look at all the people who demand that all mods for TES/Fallout always remain free. The irony being these same people will lie to your face about wanting choice, when their entire argument is about denying choice to one segment of the community that they aren't even required to participate in.

If one does not like paid mods, one simply need not buy any. Just don't be an unethical douchebag about it and turn to piracy and try to justify it using the same tired arguments that don't work for pirating the games either.

[fraquar]

In response to post #28622159. #28626849, #28637379 are all replies on the same post.

simtam wrote:

 

Oh yeah there's just so many free skins in Counter Strike GO I can use.

 

Sounds like you feel entitled :ermm:

Ghatto wrote: Sounds like the same 'flavour of the month' response to peoples concerns these days. How about actually forming an argument instead of an ad hominem.

I'm not entitled to free skins. What I am though is old enough to remember how FUN games like Counterstrike were with free skins, sprays, mods etc. Yeah most of it's still there: maps, modes and the like, but if I want to spray a funny pic? Pay. Want a different colour gun? Pay. Have a little music? Pay.

And really I can't stop the devs from doing that, but you did say
"For games where paid mods are allowed, there is - and it ever will be - a full spectrum of free mods, full-priced mods, discounted mods, free demo-versions of full payable mods, and so on - whatever price discrimination marketing invented."

and I gave an example of where there was no free version.

Arthmoor wrote: Yet nothing is stopping someone from providing a free version of that in such a game. The ability is still there. If nobody is actually providing it, that would tell me the market for that game has moved on and accepted that pay mods are fine.

Clearly nobody has a problem with it when it's Valve's own stuff, cause they're doing it on all sorts of games. God forbid someone dare think to offer TES and/or Fallout modders the same opportunity.

If you want to know where the whole "entitlement syndrome" thing comes from, you need only look at all the people who demand that all mods for TES/Fallout always remain free. The irony being these same people will lie to your face about wanting choice, when their entire argument is about denying choice to one segment of the community that they aren't even required to participate in.

If one does not like paid mods, one simply need not buy any. Just don't be an unethical douchebag about it and turn to piracy and try to justify it using the same tired arguments that don't work for pirating the games either.

Arthmoor, you are the author of a mod that pretty much demands others use your mod as the foundation of the mods they make. So the question I have is are you entitled in a "paid for" market to a portion of the proceeds of other modders donations?

Money makes EVERYTHING complicated. When you are a donor, your head starts spinning.

[simtam]

 

In response to post #28622159.

and I gave an example of where there was no free version.

I don't play that game, and even I could in no time google out where to download counterstrike go skins - and the first link was free, with some creative commons licence, no registration required to download even. Please stick to the thread topic.

[Arthmoor]

In response to post #28622159. #28626849, #28637379, #28637439 are all replies on the same post.

simtam wrote:

 

Oh yeah there's just so many free skins in Counter Strike GO I can use.

 

Sounds like you feel entitled :ermm:

Ghatto wrote: Sounds like the same 'flavour of the month' response to peoples concerns these days. How about actually forming an argument instead of an ad hominem.

I'm not entitled to free skins. What I am though is old enough to remember how FUN games like Counterstrike were with free skins, sprays, mods etc. Yeah most of it's still there: maps, modes and the like, but if I want to spray a funny pic? Pay. Want a different colour gun? Pay. Have a little music? Pay.

And really I can't stop the devs from doing that, but you did say
"For games where paid mods are allowed, there is - and it ever will be - a full spectrum of free mods, full-priced mods, discounted mods, free demo-versions of full payable mods, and so on - whatever price discrimination marketing invented."

and I gave an example of where there was no free version.

Arthmoor wrote: Yet nothing is stopping someone from providing a free version of that in such a game. The ability is still there. If nobody is actually providing it, that would tell me the market for that game has moved on and accepted that pay mods are fine.

Clearly nobody has a problem with it when it's Valve's own stuff, cause they're doing it on all sorts of games. God forbid someone dare think to offer TES and/or Fallout modders the same opportunity.

If you want to know where the whole "entitlement syndrome" thing comes from, you need only look at all the people who demand that all mods for TES/Fallout always remain free. The irony being these same people will lie to your face about wanting choice, when their entire argument is about denying choice to one segment of the community that they aren't even required to participate in.

If one does not like paid mods, one simply need not buy any. Just don't be an unethical douchebag about it and turn to piracy and try to justify it using the same tired arguments that don't work for pirating the games either.

fraquar wrote: Arthmoor, you are the author of a mod that pretty much demands others use your mod as the foundation of the mods they make. So the question I have is are you entitled in a "paid for" market to a portion of the proceeds of other modders donations?

Money makes EVERYTHING complicated. When you are a donor, your head starts spinning.

The only system we had up, for all of 2 days, made it entirely possible to split the share you received with other "resource providers" or with "contributors" as determined by the author.

Your question appears to be rooted in an assumption we have already dealt with in the USKP's FAQ though, which I'd suggest reading.

Also, you are incorrect. We do not demand anyone use it as a master file for their work. We merely make it clear that they can if they choose to, but the terms of use for the USKP are also crystal clear in the readme for that as well.

Having an option to pay for mods does not logically lead to "all mods will now be pay forever". Whoever told people that was flat out lying to drum up support. When one side of the argument has to lie to make it sound good, that argument is already lost and nobody should listen to them anymore.

[fraquar]

In response to post #28622159. #28626849, #28637379, #28637439, #28638459 are all replies on the same post.

simtam wrote:

 

Oh yeah there's just so many free skins in Counter Strike GO I can use.

 

Sounds like you feel entitled :ermm:

Ghatto wrote: Sounds like the same 'flavour of the month' response to peoples concerns these days. How about actually forming an argument instead of an ad hominem.

I'm not entitled to free skins. What I am though is old enough to remember how FUN games like Counterstrike were with free skins, sprays, mods etc. Yeah most of it's still there: maps, modes and the like, but if I want to spray a funny pic? Pay. Want a different colour gun? Pay. Have a little music? Pay.

And really I can't stop the devs from doing that, but you did say
"For games where paid mods are allowed, there is - and it ever will be - a full spectrum of free mods, full-priced mods, discounted mods, free demo-versions of full payable mods, and so on - whatever price discrimination marketing invented."

and I gave an example of where there was no free version.

Arthmoor wrote: Yet nothing is stopping someone from providing a free version of that in such a game. The ability is still there. If nobody is actually providing it, that would tell me the market for that game has moved on and accepted that pay mods are fine.

Clearly nobody has a problem with it when it's Valve's own stuff, cause they're doing it on all sorts of games. God forbid someone dare think to offer TES and/or Fallout modders the same opportunity.

If you want to know where the whole "entitlement syndrome" thing comes from, you need only look at all the people who demand that all mods for TES/Fallout always remain free. The irony being these same people will lie to your face about wanting choice, when their entire argument is about denying choice to one segment of the community that they aren't even required to participate in.

If one does not like paid mods, one simply need not buy any. Just don't be an unethical douchebag about it and turn to piracy and try to justify it using the same tired arguments that don't work for pirating the games either.

fraquar wrote: Arthmoor, you are the author of a mod that pretty much demands others use your mod as the foundation of the mods they make. So the question I have is are you entitled in a "paid for" market to a portion of the proceeds of other modders donations?

Money makes EVERYTHING complicated. When you are a donor, your head starts spinning.

Arthmoor wrote: The only system we had up, for all of 2 days, made it entirely possible to split the share you received with other "resource providers" or with "contributors" as determined by the author.

Your question appears to be rooted in an assumption we have already dealt with in the USKP's FAQ though, which I'd suggest reading.

Also, you are incorrect. We do not demand anyone use it as a master file for their work. We merely make it clear that they can if they choose to, but the terms of use for the USKP are also crystal clear in the readme for that as well.

Having an option to pay for mods does not logically lead to "all mods will now be pay forever". Whoever told people that was flat out lying to drum up support. When one side of the argument has to lie to make it sound good, that argument is already lost and nobody should listen to them anymore.

In the end, as a donor I just want to know where my money is going. Whether that is to United Way, another "non-profit" charity or even a mod author - there needs to be some disclosure as to where my "donation" is really going. For example, I can't install and run some mods unless there are at least 3-4 other mods present - so who gets what share of the donation?

ex. Try installing DynDOLOD.

Don't get me wrong here. There are significant contributions to a better game here on the Nexus. The problem lies in who is entitled to what once the "donation" button is pressed - when that mod depends and won't work as advertised unless other mods are present and running (even if they weren't donated to). Edited September 12, 2015 by fraquar