On console mods, theft and Bethesda.net

[tazdotnet]

In response to post #39469990.

skinnytecboy wrote: Firstly, I've always had a great respect for your wise words Dark0nsie
Secondly, I haven't read any of the comments before launching off on my text....

I think in regards to mod piracy, there is a misguided interpretation that console users are to blame.

However, in order to upload mods you need a Pc version of fallout in order to use CK (perhaps there is a way with pirated versions, I'm too innocent to know). Therefore, by and large, the actual perpetrators are PC users and not console users.

The above said, obviously there is fault upon the hands of some console users, but who can blame someone for wanting all those lovely slooty mods that Pc users take for granted?

In regards to the whole layout of bethnet, I personally think it's better (put down those pitchforks and hear me out).

On the nexus main page we are presented predominantly with hotfiles (predominantly underage followers in skyrims case) and a small side section that features "latest" mods. Whereas on Bethnet the presentation is equal among Popular/Favourite and New. In that aspect at least I think the nexus could learn from. Well, it would certainly sedate alk those slooty posts that keep popping up on the forums lately.

Anyway, just speaking my mind and nothing more :)

why do people give a s#*! what platform a thief uses? a thief is a thief is a thief - give them the Hoffa treatment like any other thief

[D4nks]

Well said, thanks for everything this site does!

[skinnytecboy]

In response to post #39469990. #39471310 is also a reply to the same post.

skinnytecboy wrote: Firstly, I've always had a great respect for your wise words Dark0nsie
Secondly, I haven't read any of the comments before launching off on my text....

I think in regards to mod piracy, there is a misguided interpretation that console users are to blame.

However, in order to upload mods you need a Pc version of fallout in order to use CK (perhaps there is a way with pirated versions, I'm too innocent to know). Therefore, by and large, the actual perpetrators are PC users and not console users.

The above said, obviously there is fault upon the hands of some console users, but who can blame someone for wanting all those lovely slooty mods that Pc users take for granted?

In regards to the whole layout of bethnet, I personally think it's better (put down those pitchforks and hear me out).

On the nexus main page we are presented predominantly with hotfiles (predominantly underage followers in skyrims case) and a small side section that features "latest" mods. Whereas on Bethnet the presentation is equal among Popular/Favourite and New. In that aspect at least I think the nexus could learn from. Well, it would certainly sedate alk those slooty posts that keep popping up on the forums lately.

Anyway, just speaking my mind and nothing more :)

tazdotnet wrote: why do people give a s#*! what platform a thief uses? a thief is a thief is a thief - give them the Hoffa treatment like any other thief

My point exactly. ..minus the Hoffman treatment thingy

[Purplynne]

Sometimes a "rant" needs to be long. I agree with every word!!

[Rooker75]

In response to post #39464010. #39464265, #39466000, #39467535, #39468865, #39469415, #39470170 are all replies on the same post.

MokChaoticran wrote: Thanks for this, Dark0ne, Robin, whichever you'd prefer. Watching people argue, the countless rant videos, the nonstop flood of e-mails in my inbox for reporting and calling out stolen content on Bethesda.net, watching big time mod authors lock their doors and pull their work out of the public market - It's been a painful couple of weeks and I really appreciate some kind of official word on this, and as far as the modding community goes, you're as official as it gets.

I overall agree with your stance, and it is the most educated, realistic and moral of the ones I've seen put forward. If you read this, I'd like to ask, what is your opinion on the prospect of "Mod-DRM" and the likes, as it has been discussed among mod authors lately?

Dark0ne wrote: I honestly see no problem with inserting hidden scripts in to mods, that only trigger if the mod is used on a console, that informs users that the mod has been stolen and uploaded to Bethesda.net without permission (and to perhaps please report the mod).

I'm obviously not in favour of any form of DRM that would ultimately damage a console player, his console or his save game.

yevvie wrote: That would be amazing thing, especially informing console users that the stolen mod can damage their console, saves, and everything they have on there, since it wasn't tested with consoles at all.

I'd love to see someone from nexus releasing such script so we could add it to our mods, since for many of us something like this is way too complex to create.

Hopefully this idea will stay in minds of modders here, as it's really good way of fixing things.

Xeneonic wrote: I have to agree with Dark0ne's latter sentence. Most people playing on consoles and browsing beth.net are people that want to play with mods with no strings attached. Not everyone researches into these developments the past few weeks, they come home from a hard day at work, see a new popular mod and want to try it out.

Getting to hear at that time that the mod won't work is fine, but suddenly having your game broken or saves gone is a few steps too far, as it would be punishment to someone that doesn't even know it was stolen or anything like that. You'd be punishing the wrong group of people with that.

To the contrary, I'm sure some trolls would upload some mods to beth.net that would delete saves etc just to annoy the community for the hell of it.

Requiring SKSE or a script that warns users that it will not work/is stolen should be more than enough.

Theseus12 wrote: A mod that suddenly boots the game back to the main menu, and says "(plugin) was not designed with consoles in mind, and could severely damage your system. If you see this message, it is likely that this mod is stolen, and we ask that you please report it. If you believe this message is an error, please contact (mod author) at (page)

sothpaw wrote: Out of everything I've had the opportunity to view - I am most supportive of the SKSE option. Since it's an outside program, it doesn't appear likely that a console user could make use of a stolen mod.

It seems to me that on top of the aformentioned... many responding console users in the bethnet forums possess little to no patience. When I used to work with other mod authors in the Oblivion days, it would take weeks, sometime months to get something ready for release. That doesn't appear to have changed. What has changed it seems is the maturity and patience level of the user audience. It's disheartening to learn that the work put into creating mods is largely misunderstood by this new audience.

OldMansBeard wrote: Simply arranging for vital bits of the mod to quietly not work on consoles may be sufficient. In Skyrim, there's a condition function IsWin32 that can be used to trap console usage and there's a papyrus function Debug.GetPlatformName() that can be used equivalently. Anyone uploading a mod with those sprinkled through it will find themselves with a dead dog and console users who try it out will soon start throwing brickbats at him. In a way, it's self-policing.

Of course, this only works for mods that actually contain scripts. Mods that consist entirely of meshes, textures, animations and so on, are still vulnerable.

Happy to see that last sentence. I've seen musings on this site, from people who ought to know better, about ways to delete saves and other files inside the data folder as a form of DRM.

I didn't say anything at the time because the thread was old and abandoned when I found it, but I did block about two dozen mod authors. If that's the sort of thing they support, I don't trust their mods on my system.

[Jusey1]

In response to post #39471285.

Rooker75 wrote: Honestly, I thought the FO4 GECK was delayed because someone there got the boneheaded idea they could make more money by withholding it until after they released DLC. The timing of its release makes me think I was right. It certainly taught me never to buy one of their new games until after they release its SDK. I play their games mainly for the modding, not for the game itself.

As I said when one of their early FO4 patches disabled mods and appeared to be deliberately tampering with config files to prevent mods from running, Bethesda appears to be attempting to assert an authority over modding they don't have and they need to back off. I lost interest, so I don't know if the true reason for that behavior was ever revealed.

I worry they'll look at the reaction to paid modding last year and the reaction to this now and decide supporting mods is more trouble than it's worth for them. While I'd love it if they backed away from trying to control modding, it would be a disaster for them and us (probably more for them than for us) if they decided to stop releasing SDKs for their games. If we could go back to the way things were at the beginning of last year, that would be great.

Anyway, just want to note one thing: If you file a DMCA complaint about a mod (or any other reason), the target of the complaint receives your name, address, email address and various other personal information. It could lead to doxxing, swatting and who knows what else.

I think using DMCA as a go to was a dumb way for them to handle this.

/edit: Forgot to mention, thanks for the new permission settings. I don't like the rights Beth/Zenimax grant themselves, so I'd already decided I want none of my mods on their site.

If you play ANY game just for the modding (unless that is the game's purpose) then don't buy their games at all. The games obviously aren't meant for you.

[Sadguy99]

In response to post #39469990. #39471310, #39471555 are all replies on the same post.

skinnytecboy wrote: Firstly, I've always had a great respect for your wise words Dark0nsie
Secondly, I haven't read any of the comments before launching off on my text....

I think in regards to mod piracy, there is a misguided interpretation that console users are to blame.

However, in order to upload mods you need a Pc version of fallout in order to use CK (perhaps there is a way with pirated versions, I'm too innocent to know). Therefore, by and large, the actual perpetrators are PC users and not console users.

The above said, obviously there is fault upon the hands of some console users, but who can blame someone for wanting all those lovely slooty mods that Pc users take for granted?

In regards to the whole layout of bethnet, I personally think it's better (put down those pitchforks and hear me out).

On the nexus main page we are presented predominantly with hotfiles (predominantly underage followers in skyrims case) and a small side section that features "latest" mods. Whereas on Bethnet the presentation is equal among Popular/Favourite and New. In that aspect at least I think the nexus could learn from. Well, it would certainly sedate alk those slooty posts that keep popping up on the forums lately.

Anyway, just speaking my mind and nothing more :)

tazdotnet wrote: why do people give a s#*! what platform a thief uses? a thief is a thief is a thief - give them the Hoffa treatment like any other thief

skinnytecboy wrote: My point exactly. ..minus the Hoffman treatment thingy

Pls, define and point out differences between "pc users" and "console" user, sir. If a "pc user" also has a console and play games on both platform what do you call him? "pc console hybrid user" or "pc-onsole user"?

[blateus]

First let me say thank you Dark0ne for this info.

I had no idea that they where making mod's for console's,congrats to those who do. Second, let me say it will be great for those who use console's to do there gaming on.

 

Now for the main point's: 1) I have alway's said that I would preffer a pc to a console for gaming, simply because I can do a whole lot more with a pc then a console.( this mean's all things not just gaming.).though I do use one at time's to cut down on the amount of power I use( electricity).

 

2) as for the stealing of mod's and putting them on another site, well this is wrong.there is no excuse

not to just get a hold of the one who created the mod and ask his permission first.

 

3) As for Bethesda having no real way to moderate there site, there is the same reason for all they do,as well as all game company. And that is to make money( not a bad thing,if you do it respectfully,).

to sell there game's they need people to buy them, and the more content it has the more sell's it will have,whether it's content that was built in, or by mods, and the more mod's they can get on there site then the better it will be for them. So moderating there site right now would not be prudent,( I guess they feel if the authors of the mod's that are out there don't upload it to there site, then some one has to.after all, asking them to moderate there site would be like telling them to only sell so many of there game's.

 

I would like to thank Bethesda and all other company's who incourage the modding community, by making the game they do to be modded, and I understand that this could be a two edged sword kinda thing. for some games will go on for as long as the modding community is out there,and this could cut in to there sell's of other game's.but it could also encourage the buying of such other game's.

 

sincerely

 

you know who

[SharraShimada]

In response to post #39464010. #39464265, #39466000, #39467535, #39468865, #39469415, #39470170, #39471845 are all replies on the same post.

MokChaoticran wrote: Thanks for this, Dark0ne, Robin, whichever you'd prefer. Watching people argue, the countless rant videos, the nonstop flood of e-mails in my inbox for reporting and calling out stolen content on Bethesda.net, watching big time mod authors lock their doors and pull their work out of the public market - It's been a painful couple of weeks and I really appreciate some kind of official word on this, and as far as the modding community goes, you're as official as it gets.

I overall agree with your stance, and it is the most educated, realistic and moral of the ones I've seen put forward. If you read this, I'd like to ask, what is your opinion on the prospect of "Mod-DRM" and the likes, as it has been discussed among mod authors lately?

Dark0ne wrote: I honestly see no problem with inserting hidden scripts in to mods, that only trigger if the mod is used on a console, that informs users that the mod has been stolen and uploaded to Bethesda.net without permission (and to perhaps please report the mod).

I'm obviously not in favour of any form of DRM that would ultimately damage a console player, his console or his save game.

yevvie wrote: That would be amazing thing, especially informing console users that the stolen mod can damage their console, saves, and everything they have on there, since it wasn't tested with consoles at all.

I'd love to see someone from nexus releasing such script so we could add it to our mods, since for many of us something like this is way too complex to create.

Hopefully this idea will stay in minds of modders here, as it's really good way of fixing things.

Xeneonic wrote: I have to agree with Dark0ne's latter sentence. Most people playing on consoles and browsing beth.net are people that want to play with mods with no strings attached. Not everyone researches into these developments the past few weeks, they come home from a hard day at work, see a new popular mod and want to try it out.

Getting to hear at that time that the mod won't work is fine, but suddenly having your game broken or saves gone is a few steps too far, as it would be punishment to someone that doesn't even know it was stolen or anything like that. You'd be punishing the wrong group of people with that.

To the contrary, I'm sure some trolls would upload some mods to beth.net that would delete saves etc just to annoy the community for the hell of it.

Requiring SKSE or a script that warns users that it will not work/is stolen should be more than enough.

Theseus12 wrote: A mod that suddenly boots the game back to the main menu, and says "(plugin) was not designed with consoles in mind, and could severely damage your system. If you see this message, it is likely that this mod is stolen, and we ask that you please report it. If you believe this message is an error, please contact (mod author) at (page)

sothpaw wrote: Out of everything I've had the opportunity to view - I am most supportive of the SKSE option. Since it's an outside program, it doesn't appear likely that a console user could make use of a stolen mod.

It seems to me that on top of the aformentioned... many responding console users in the bethnet forums possess little to no patience. When I used to work with other mod authors in the Oblivion days, it would take weeks, sometime months to get something ready for release. That doesn't appear to have changed. What has changed it seems is the maturity and patience level of the user audience. It's disheartening to learn that the work put into creating mods is largely misunderstood by this new audience.

OldMansBeard wrote: Simply arranging for vital bits of the mod to quietly not work on consoles may be sufficient. In Skyrim, there's a condition function IsWin32 that can be used to trap console usage and there's a papyrus function Debug.GetPlatformName() that can be used equivalently. Anyone uploading a mod with those sprinkled through it will find themselves with a dead dog and console users who try it out will soon start throwing brickbats at him. In a way, it's self-policing.

Of course, this only works for mods that actually contain scripts. Mods that consist entirely of meshes, textures, animations and so on, are still vulnerable.

Rooker75 wrote: Happy to see that last sentence. I've seen musings on this site, from people who ought to know better, about ways to delete saves and other files inside the data folder as a form of DRM.

I didn't say anything at the time because the thread was old and abandoned when I found it, but I did block about two dozen mod authors. If that's the sort of thing they support, I don't trust their mods on my system.

There is one little problem with your idea... We are not able to compile Mods to a binary form. So, everyone, with a bit of knowledge with the CK, can remove any unwanted scripts from the mod-file. So, if you are not be able to hide the function deeply hidden within a needed script, there is no way to keep others from stealing.
And due to console-limits, there is no skse/fose, and that means: no complex scripts.

[Rooker75]

In response to post #39471285. #39471885 is also a reply to the same post.

Rooker75 wrote: Honestly, I thought the FO4 GECK was delayed because someone there got the boneheaded idea they could make more money by withholding it until after they released DLC. The timing of its release makes me think I was right. It certainly taught me never to buy one of their new games until after they release its SDK. I play their games mainly for the modding, not for the game itself.

As I said when one of their early FO4 patches disabled mods and appeared to be deliberately tampering with config files to prevent mods from running, Bethesda appears to be attempting to assert an authority over modding they don't have and they need to back off. I lost interest, so I don't know if the true reason for that behavior was ever revealed.

I worry they'll look at the reaction to paid modding last year and the reaction to this now and decide supporting mods is more trouble than it's worth for them. While I'd love it if they backed away from trying to control modding, it would be a disaster for them and us (probably more for them than for us) if they decided to stop releasing SDKs for their games. If we could go back to the way things were at the beginning of last year, that would be great.

Anyway, just want to note one thing: If you file a DMCA complaint about a mod (or any other reason), the target of the complaint receives your name, address, email address and various other personal information. It could lead to doxxing, swatting and who knows what else.

I think using DMCA as a go to was a dumb way for them to handle this.

/edit: Forgot to mention, thanks for the new permission settings. I don't like the rights Beth/Zenimax grant themselves, so I'd already decided I want none of my mods on their site.

Jusey1 wrote: If you play ANY game just for the modding (unless that is the game's purpose) then don't buy their games at all. The games obviously aren't meant for you.

Did you get lost? I'm not sure you're in the right place. Do you need assistance?