On console mods, theft and Bethesda.net

[Jusey1]

In response to post #39471285. #39471885, #39472400 are all replies on 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.

Rooker75 wrote: Did you get lost? I'm not sure you're in the right place. Do you need assistance?

Nope. I am not lost.

[axonis]

The article needs a bit of cleanup because it currently looks like a straw man argument:

 

"mods on console are bad due to how it’s affecting the PC modding community" (direct quote from the article) because Bethesda.net doesn't respect author's rights diligently enough ?

 

These are different things. While the latter is probably correct, I just don't understand how it relates to the former.

[WanderingAlone]

Definitely worth the read.

[Kukassin]

In response to post #39469990. #39471310, #39471555, #39471980 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

Sadguy99 wrote: 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"?

You can do it with a pirated version, so it's both who are to blame.

The only reason I even have a problem with some of the console community is that they f*#@ING SUPPORT IT! That (as a mod author myself) is f*#@ing disgusting and I feel like slamming my fist down their throats when they think themselves the f*#@ing Robin Hood of console modding.

[Kukassin]

In response to post #39472780.

axonis wrote: The article needs a bit of cleanup because it currently looks like a straw man argument:

"mods on console are bad due to how it’s affecting the PC modding community" (direct quote from the article) because Bethesda.net doesn't respect author's rights diligently enough ?

These are different things. While the latter is probably correct, I just don't understand how it relates to the former.

Different things, but they definitely collide.

Some people are taking down their work even from the Nexus so it won't be the target of theft, and as such, this is hurting even the Nexus community.

Some are even implementing DRM of sorts so console versions of the game will get mauled and won't work.

As long as mod authors see the console community support blatant theft and tell the original authors to f*#@ off and that they are elitist cunts in the Beth.net comments section (that is a very very common thing), they will puff the f*#@ up and deny access to their work. That is the fault of the console community and that is why not respecting the authors (on Bethesda's AND the community's part) and console modding both affect the PC community in a bad way.

[ElRizzo]

Quite a wall of text, but it was well worth the read ! :D Really appreciate you taking the time, out of what I imagine to be a very busy day, to write such a lengthy but highly informative post to clear up some of the misconceptions about mod copyright and the recent events that some people might have. Keep up the great work you and your team are doing each day so that this site stays the number 1 source for mods for many more years to come :)

[R0NlN]

In response to post #39468315. #39468760, #39469375, #39469590 are all replies on the same post.

R0NlN wrote: I hesitate to post this (since most people aren't very open to criticism, no matter how constructive-- that's just human nature), but in the end I feel compelled to do so. That was a painful read, which means it probably didn't accomplish what you wanted it to.

I know you have some important points to make, but there's a lot of brush to clear to find them. Please, in the future, edit before you publish. Provide an introduction that previews your main points, develop those points in the body, and finish with a summary. Go through each line (or at least each paragraph) and ask yourself, "Does this need to be here? Can it be shortened or reworded, to make the point more concisely?"

Try saying in a few words what you've said here in 5,127. You have to grab your readers' attention, get your message across, and wrap it up as quickly as the subject allows.

Sorry for the unsolicited advice. I only want to help you write articles that will impact your audience.

Dark0ne wrote: I hated English Lit class for this very reason.

These posts have always been a practical opinion-dump on my part. Almost as though you're reading what I would have said out loud, unedited and uncut. My honest opinion.

Believe it or not these articles do go through extensive editing, reworking of paragraphs, the removal of others and reorganising the structure, so the end result is exactly how I wanted the article to read.

All in all, it took about 6 hours to write and edit this particular article.

jackty89 wrote: I tough it was a good article it's written in the style "I'm in front of you talking". I really think it's a good read, a bit long but for a subject like this I'm rather certain that being short would leave to much for interpretation and that is something you want to avoid. I do think he should have added a TLDR; at the end as a lot of people... dislike reading unlike me :p

Thallassa wrote:

In response to post #39468315. #39468760, #39469375 are all replies on the same post.

Perhaps you shouldn't hate on legalese so much though...

Edit: What I mean is, legalese is a writing style that serves a particular purposes and does it very well. You also defend your writing style as suitable for your purpose, even if others find it a bit dense. So why complain about other people's language? :tongue:

Edit 2: Do all the swear words in your post mean swearing is ok on nexus now? Damn! :D

This is a reply to Dark0ne, in response to _his_ reply to me:

That's fine, it's your choice. Just as long as you realize that a not-insubstantial number of people will give up on the "stream of consciousness" type of writing, never having learned what it was that you wanted them to take away from it.

Thanks much for taking my post in the spirit in which it was intended! Edited June 17, 2016 by R0NlN

[offdrip]

Right on man

 

[Kukassin]

In response to post #39464010. #39464265, #39466000, #39467535, #39468865, #39469415, #39470170, #39471845, #39472280 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.

SharraShimada wrote: 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.

I do think a script that warns of the mod being stolen and it being likely to damage your game is a positively great idea! It's simple and the idiots who are stealing the mods probably have no clue as to how you can remove that script.

It could warn the user to delete the mod and to report it on Bethesda.net right away.

About the likely part, I myself, would actually add a timer from that point on. If they don't stop using it and say "eeh f*#@ you pc elitist", then just let it brick their saves. They can honestly f*#@ off at that point.

Nobody is entitled to your work. Edited June 17, 2016 by Kukassin

[Augustyn666]

I'm sorry that this has been such a mess, Dark0ne. Thanks again for sticking with this and staying so professional and sensible, even when all around you are people acting selfish, inconsiderate and hostile. I appreciate what you do, and respect your patience.