On console mods, theft and Bethesda.net

[MajorFreak]

In response to post #39589525. #39589815, #39590450, #39601020, #39602615, #39613970, #39621735 are all replies on the same post.

kevindad1 wrote: Pretty much everything has the "release now, fix later" treatment. That's not to say that what you're saying is wrong though.

kevindad1 wrote: And why are people talking about paid mods? Bethesda knows that that failed. Do you really think that they'll attempt that again? How would they make it work anyway.

phantompally76 wrote: The same way EA gets away with charging full price for half a Star Wars: Battlefront and then ransoming the other half as DLC behind a paywall.

Because average gamer$ will purchase them without questioning the legality, morality or stupidity of the software companies.

Paid mods already exist. Some of you just don't realize it yet.

kevindad1 wrote: Who said that EA got away with that? Better yet, what does your reply have anything to do with what I said? (Minus the last part, that is obviously not true)

phantompally76 wrote: They're still getting away with it. And they're going to get away with it again when they release the Battlefront sequel. And they won't change their business model, because they don't have to.

But if you don't want me to bring EA into it, fine. Bethesda didn't fail at paid mods. To the contrary, they've already succeeded. You just haven't stopped to realize it yet.

Most of us here paid for a mod disguised as DLC from Bethesda nearly 4 years ago, a derivative work based (heavily) off a free mod. Some in this community STILL refuse to purchase it (much to the chagrin of almost every mod author on the Nexus), leaving a very small minority of gamers with the ability to stand upon any sort of tangible moral high ground on this matter, but most of us own it (even if we got it on sale or in a bundle). Most of us own and use a paid mod uploaded by Bethesda based off someone else's work. Why this never came up during #modgate (and perhaps it did, but if so it was buried amongst the blatant hypocrisy and ASCII genitalia) is a little staggering.

So don't pretend to act like this is new territory. Bethesda has already charged the majority of us for a mod....the ultimate copyright-infringing paid mod.... and the majority of us willingly shelled out the cash because they called it DLC. Bethesda got away with it, and they will get away with it again.

And before the white knights retort "But that was totally different....", no. No different.

Just inconvenient.

kevindad1 wrote: 1. How is EA "still" getting away with it? It's more common to see people pissed at EA than at Bethesda.
2. Now I understand what you're saying about "paid mods". And now that I do know, I realize that what you said is just nonsense. You would rather use a (possibly) buggy mod that may mess up your game and/or give you crashes than the official less buggy (notice how I said less buggy) thing? Plus, it's only 5 bucks, you shouldn't really expect much.

phantompally76 wrote: Your definition of "less buggy" is not congruent with mine. Neither are your expectations.

It takes at least half a dozen other mods to make Hearthfire worth using (even with USLEEP), and even then there are still issues with the core "DLC".

But the point remains. Paid mods aren't around the corner.....they've been here for years.

he's a troll, kevindad1. i'm researching the old "why did bethesda remove paid skyrim mods" article on nexus (and he's right there in the thick of it as the moderator locked it) and he's basically one of those kids who's addicted to the reply button, using long words he found in the thesaurus, and basically living in a dream world where staying at the top of the comments section is all that matters

But, yeah, it's fascinating the whole "release now, fix later" treatment most companies treat their Q&A dept. with...it must drive those testers crazy as well.
As for paid mods, i'm pretty sure Dark0ne mentioned it in his article at some point, or at least if he didn't it sure was implied Edited June 21, 2016 by MajorFreak

[MajorFreak]

In response to post #39629475.

The Vampire Dante wrote:

 

why did Bethesda take down that paid mod option

 

They didn't - Valve did.

yeah, technically true, but i'm reading up on the whole thing right now. thanks.
http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/news/12464/?

http://www.bethblog.com/2015/04/27/why-were-trying-paid-skyrim-mods-on-steam/
https://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/208632365253244218

I'm hoping to read something about why exactly bethesda absolutely wanted curating to not be the model, and why the all or nothing idea without comment (or so i'm starting to think after finding nothing to the contrary)...And if it was solely valve's decision and you imply Bethesda's wishes were irrelevant on the matter, then are you implying that the latter never really put much thought into it then and now?
Edited June 21, 2016 by MajorFreak

[phantompally76]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39630255 are all replies on the same post.

dobmc wrote: With all this "set-up" you would think Bethesda is planning to bring paid mods to consoles.

Haha I'm just joking guys. Of course even Bethesda isn't desperate to sink that low.

Wait a minute.

midtek wrote: A side note:

I think that's not something morally sunken, or only comes from the desperate which cannot be accepted from the society. Hines made valid points about paid mod in his interviews. While some may disagree, or claim it is from greed, it still stands as a valid option. The question might be how much it will be a benefit and who benefits from it? Plus, if they don't do that in excellency, better not start from the beginning; that might be the thing everyone agrees.

dobmc wrote: Either way I don't think anyone is willing to let the modding community change, especially not when a company like Bethesda comes back after 14 years of hiatus and suddenly decides to be a boss of what's good for the community.

midtek wrote: yeah, I agree. It feels awkward when they just show up claiming that they have been through all these years with you, wanting to share 'the fruit of collaboration' with you when at the same time mods are getting stolen to the net. It's not like an evil company. They could try to build better relationship.

MajorFreak wrote: i think the question alot of us have, especially those like me who don't remember the era of skyrim paid mods, is: why did Bethesda take down that paid mod option and did they give a coherent reason for such that we know they've at least got a chance of remembering what the problem was and hopefully that means they've got a solution in mind (unless, of course, whoever took down the site was fired and the new guys have no clue)

MajorFreak wrote: dude, you really ought to stop speculating wildly. Both valve and bethesda have spoken in the past, and neither of their articles on the subject speak of anything but a joint decision.

http://www.bethblog.com/2015/04/27/why-were-trying-paid-skyrim-mods-on-steam/
and
https://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/208632365253244218

and from what little i've read of past comments, yours were the ones needing moderation

Bethesda only changed their minds because Valve backed out. And Valve only backed out because they weren't equipped to deal with half a million angry neckbeards portraying themselves as ten million angry neckbeards.

This time around, Valve is not part of the equation, so there's no way Bethesda will back down this time. They've been putting up with us for 2 decades, and they know how to handle us. And they'll find a way to monetize amateur modding whether we like it or not. Edited June 21, 2016 by phantompally76

[phantompally76]

In response to post #39589525. #39589815, #39590450, #39601020, #39602615, #39613970, #39621735, #39629690 are all replies on the same post.

kevindad1 wrote: Pretty much everything has the "release now, fix later" treatment. That's not to say that what you're saying is wrong though.

kevindad1 wrote: And why are people talking about paid mods? Bethesda knows that that failed. Do you really think that they'll attempt that again? How would they make it work anyway.

phantompally76 wrote: The same way EA gets away with charging full price for half a Star Wars: Battlefront and then ransoming the other half as DLC behind a paywall.

Because average gamer$ will purchase them without questioning the legality, morality or stupidity of the software companies.

Paid mods already exist. Some of you just don't realize it yet.

kevindad1 wrote: Who said that EA got away with that? Better yet, what does your reply have anything to do with what I said? (Minus the last part, that is obviously not true)

phantompally76 wrote: They're still getting away with it. And they're going to get away with it again when they release the Battlefront sequel. And they won't change their business model, because they don't have to.

But if you don't want me to bring EA into it, fine. Bethesda didn't fail at paid mods. To the contrary, they've already succeeded. You just haven't stopped to realize it yet.

Most of us here paid for a mod disguised as DLC from Bethesda nearly 4 years ago, a derivative work based (heavily) off a free mod. Some in this community STILL refuse to purchase it (much to the chagrin of almost every mod author on the Nexus), leaving a very small minority of gamers with the ability to stand upon any sort of tangible moral high ground on this matter, but most of us own it (even if we got it on sale or in a bundle). Most of us own and use a paid mod uploaded by Bethesda based off someone else's work. Why this never came up during #modgate (and perhaps it did, but if so it was buried amongst the blatant hypocrisy and ASCII genitalia) is a little staggering.

So don't pretend to act like this is new territory. Bethesda has already charged the majority of us for a mod....the ultimate copyright-infringing paid mod.... and the majority of us willingly shelled out the cash because they called it DLC. Bethesda got away with it, and they will get away with it again.

And before the white knights retort "But that was totally different....", no. No different.

Just inconvenient.

kevindad1 wrote: 1. How is EA "still" getting away with it? It's more common to see people pissed at EA than at Bethesda.
2. Now I understand what you're saying about "paid mods". And now that I do know, I realize that what you said is just nonsense. You would rather use a (possibly) buggy mod that may mess up your game and/or give you crashes than the official less buggy (notice how I said less buggy) thing? Plus, it's only 5 bucks, you shouldn't really expect much.

phantompally76 wrote: Your definition of "less buggy" is not congruent with mine. Neither are your expectations.

It takes at least half a dozen other mods to make Hearthfire worth using (even with USLEEP), and even then there are still issues with the core "DLC".

But the point remains. Paid mods aren't around the corner.....they've been here for years.

MajorFreak wrote: he's a troll, kevindad1. i'm researching the old "why did bethesda remove paid skyrim mods" article on nexus (and he's right there in the thick of it as the moderator locked it) and he's basically one of those kids who's addicted to the reply button, using long words he found in the thesaurus, and basically living in a dream world where staying at the top of the comments section is all that matters

But, yeah, it's fascinating the whole "release now, fix later" treatment most companies treat their Q&A dept. with...it must drive those testers crazy as well.
As for paid mods, i'm pretty sure Dark0ne mentioned it in his article at some point, or at least if he didn't it sure was implied

That's not my motivation at all.

I simply care too much about this community to watch it destroy itself because of its own ignorance, short-sightedness, and impertinence.

And you will NOT fault me for that, MajorFreak. Nor for my writing skills. You get your say, and whether you like it or not, so do I.

And if you're going to stalk my post history like an obsessed lunatic, why not throw me a bone and give me some credit for predicting this storm was coming over a month ago. Edited June 21, 2016 by phantompally76

[MajorFreak]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840 are all replies on the same post.

dobmc wrote: With all this "set-up" you would think Bethesda is planning to bring paid mods to consoles.

Haha I'm just joking guys. Of course even Bethesda isn't desperate to sink that low.

Wait a minute.

midtek wrote: A side note:

I think that's not something morally sunken, or only comes from the desperate which cannot be accepted from the society. Hines made valid points about paid mod in his interviews. While some may disagree, or claim it is from greed, it still stands as a valid option. The question might be how much it will be a benefit and who benefits from it? Plus, if they don't do that in excellency, better not start from the beginning; that might be the thing everyone agrees.

dobmc wrote: Either way I don't think anyone is willing to let the modding community change, especially not when a company like Bethesda comes back after 14 years of hiatus and suddenly decides to be a boss of what's good for the community.

midtek wrote: yeah, I agree. It feels awkward when they just show up claiming that they have been through all these years with you, wanting to share 'the fruit of collaboration' with you when at the same time mods are getting stolen to the net. It's not like an evil company. They could try to build better relationship.

MajorFreak wrote: i think the question alot of us have, especially those like me who don't remember the era of skyrim paid mods, is: why did Bethesda take down that paid mod option and did they give a coherent reason for such that we know they've at least got a chance of remembering what the problem was and hopefully that means they've got a solution in mind (unless, of course, whoever took down the site was fired and the new guys have no clue)

phantompally76 wrote: Bethesda only changed their minds because Valve backed out. And Valve only backed out because they weren't equipped to deal with half a million angry neckbeards portraying themselves as ten million angry neckbeards.

This time, Valve is not part of the equation, so there's no way Bethesda will back down this time. They've been putting up with us for 2 decades, and they know how to handle us. And they'll find a way to monetize amateur modding whether we like it or not.

dude, you really ought to stop speculating wildly. Both valve and bethesda have spoken in the past, and neither of their articles on the subject speak of anything but a joint decision.

http://www.bethblog.com/2015/04/27/why-were-trying-paid-skyrim-mods-on-steam/
and
https://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/208632365253244218

and from what little i've read of past comments, yours were the ones needing moderation

[Yehudi]

In response to post #39610190. #39610305, #39611605, #39612570, #39615290, #39628270, #39629295 are all replies on the same post.

aquilegia wrote: It seems to me the right solution here is to integrate nexus with bethesda.net asap.

In other words: make it easier to completely mirror mods from nexus to bethesda. And that means: keep the mod title intact. Keep the original author intact. Keep the copyright permissions intact. Make it easy to push description updates from nexus to bethesda. Ideally, include some kind of reference to the Nexus entry so that future NMM versions can recognize when a bethesda.net mod is a version of a nexus mod?

If mods can be copied over with the touch of a button, that replaces the "need" for misattribution that is so objectionable here.

midtek wrote: bethesda.net simply won't want that. Why do you think they started hosting all of a sudden?

Yehudi wrote: ooh i dunno about intergrate more like interface unless of course bethesda want to hand over management of bethnet to the nexus in exchange for a handsome paycheck that might even be better more money for the nexus means more staff to handle the additional task all files get checked the pilfering stops mod authors and are once again happy little bunnies the console timmys get a fair service we get a better nexus the nexus grows in size and thus revenue ,win win i say.

RamonXick wrote: lmao no, I honestly like nexus to stay independent

JaYmZeE311074 wrote: That is a terryfying possibility that I had niavely not considered until reading this - THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THIS - TO QUOTE CYPHER IN THE MATRIX, "IGNORANCE IS BLISS!" - I'll not be able to sleep until the inevetable takeover comes and then I'll cry as CHAOS errupts and the first missles are fired.

DOOMED! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!.

This balanced post was brought to you by JaYmZeE - who really thinks head and shoulders is great for your dandruff even though he's bald himself. Or is he?

MUHAHAHAHAHAH

EDIT: Quick thought on this - assuming your going to sell up cause of the obscene amount of money offered and have to sign some sort of non-competition clause, I would immediately like to hire the entire nexus team to run my Taxi/Private Hire Car sites new wing which will cater to something really clever in legalese that does/doesn't mean hosting mods for games I like to play - I need a lawyer!

Yehudi wrote: you mis understand me im not suggesting bethesda buys the nexus not at all...im suggesting bethesda hands control ( not ownership ) of bethnet to the nexus team who clearly have the experience and know how when it comes to running a mod site and bethesda pays to nexus to manage it , now if you bear in mind that with the nexus running the bethnet site any attempt to take a file from pc nexus which the pirate then tries to upload to xbone side wont happen it cant happen the nexus staff will be playing game keeper on both sides , and of course the nexus wont want to do it for free bethesda can pay for that service it will save them from themselves so to speak , everyones a winner.

at no point did i say the nexus should sell to bethesda there is a difference between hearing and listening d,know what i mean.

whilst you ( generic you , him her etc) may not like the idea for whatever reason it is a logical step that has the potential to benefit everyone involved maybe i shouldnt of bothered posting here given the fact that all you lot seem to wanna do is b&@*$ and fight about what you do and dont want , you seem oblivious to one simple fact both bethesda and the nexus are businesses and are run as such .

( and create a phone app for your taxi customers )

phantompally76 wrote: As much as this modding community may want that to happen.....no one else in the gaming world does.

you and i cant speak for everyone whatever it is that we do or dont want , im just going to leave it here iv voiced my opinion ,have fun and stay safe.

[MajorFreak]

In response to post #39589525. #39589815, #39590450, #39601020, #39602615, #39613970, #39621735, #39629690, #39630145 are all replies on the same post.

kevindad1 wrote: Pretty much everything has the "release now, fix later" treatment. That's not to say that what you're saying is wrong though.

kevindad1 wrote: And why are people talking about paid mods? Bethesda knows that that failed. Do you really think that they'll attempt that again? How would they make it work anyway.

phantompally76 wrote: The same way EA gets away with charging full price for half a Star Wars: Battlefront and then ransoming the other half as DLC behind a paywall.

Because average gamer$ will purchase them without questioning the legality, morality or stupidity of the software companies.

Paid mods already exist. Some of you just don't realize it yet.

kevindad1 wrote: Who said that EA got away with that? Better yet, what does your reply have anything to do with what I said? (Minus the last part, that is obviously not true)

phantompally76 wrote: They're still getting away with it. And they're going to get away with it again when they release the Battlefront sequel. And they won't change their business model, because they don't have to.

But if you don't want me to bring EA into it, fine. Bethesda didn't fail at paid mods. To the contrary, they've already succeeded. You just haven't stopped to realize it yet.

Most of us here paid for a mod disguised as DLC from Bethesda nearly 4 years ago, a derivative work based (heavily) off a free mod. Some in this community STILL refuse to purchase it (much to the chagrin of almost every mod author on the Nexus), leaving a very small minority of gamers with the ability to stand upon any sort of tangible moral high ground on this matter, but most of us own it (even if we got it on sale or in a bundle). Most of us own and use a paid mod uploaded by Bethesda based off someone else's work. Why this never came up during #modgate (and perhaps it did, but if so it was buried amongst the blatant hypocrisy and ASCII genitalia) is a little staggering.

So don't pretend to act like this is new territory. Bethesda has already charged the majority of us for a mod....the ultimate copyright-infringing paid mod.... and the majority of us willingly shelled out the cash because they called it DLC. Bethesda got away with it, and they will get away with it again.

And before the white knights retort "But that was totally different....", no. No different.

Just inconvenient.

kevindad1 wrote: 1. How is EA "still" getting away with it? It's more common to see people pissed at EA than at Bethesda.
2. Now I understand what you're saying about "paid mods". And now that I do know, I realize that what you said is just nonsense. You would rather use a (possibly) buggy mod that may mess up your game and/or give you crashes than the official less buggy (notice how I said less buggy) thing? Plus, it's only 5 bucks, you shouldn't really expect much.

phantompally76 wrote: Your definition of "less buggy" is not congruent with mine. Neither are your expectations.

It takes at least half a dozen other mods to make Hearthfire worth using (even with USLEEP), and even then there are still issues with the core "DLC".

But the point remains. Paid mods aren't around the corner.....they've been here for years.

MajorFreak wrote: he's a troll, kevindad1. i'm researching the old "why did bethesda remove paid skyrim mods" article on nexus (and he's right there in the thick of it as the moderator locked it) and he's basically one of those kids who's addicted to the reply button, using long words he found in the thesaurus, and basically living in a dream world where staying at the top of the comments section is all that matters

But, yeah, it's fascinating the whole "release now, fix later" treatment most companies treat their Q&A dept. with...it must drive those testers crazy as well.
As for paid mods, i'm pretty sure Dark0ne mentioned it in his article at some point, or at least if he didn't it sure was implied

phantompally76 wrote: That's not my motivation at all.

I simply care too much about this community to watch it destroy itself because of its own ignorance, short-sightedness, and impertinence.

And you will NOT fault me for that, MajorFreak. Nor for my writing skills. You get your say, and whether you like it or not, so do I.

And if you're going to stalk my post history like an obsessed lunatic, why not throw me a bone and give me some credit for predicting this storm was coming over a month ago.

case in point

[phantompally76]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255 are all replies on the same post.

dobmc wrote: With all this "set-up" you would think Bethesda is planning to bring paid mods to consoles.

Haha I'm just joking guys. Of course even Bethesda isn't desperate to sink that low.

Wait a minute.

midtek wrote: A side note:

I think that's not something morally sunken, or only comes from the desperate which cannot be accepted from the society. Hines made valid points about paid mod in his interviews. While some may disagree, or claim it is from greed, it still stands as a valid option. The question might be how much it will be a benefit and who benefits from it? Plus, if they don't do that in excellency, better not start from the beginning; that might be the thing everyone agrees.

dobmc wrote: Either way I don't think anyone is willing to let the modding community change, especially not when a company like Bethesda comes back after 14 years of hiatus and suddenly decides to be a boss of what's good for the community.

midtek wrote: yeah, I agree. It feels awkward when they just show up claiming that they have been through all these years with you, wanting to share 'the fruit of collaboration' with you when at the same time mods are getting stolen to the net. It's not like an evil company. They could try to build better relationship.

MajorFreak wrote: i think the question alot of us have, especially those like me who don't remember the era of skyrim paid mods, is: why did Bethesda take down that paid mod option and did they give a coherent reason for such that we know they've at least got a chance of remembering what the problem was and hopefully that means they've got a solution in mind (unless, of course, whoever took down the site was fired and the new guys have no clue)

phantompally76 wrote: Bethesda only changed their minds because Valve backed out. And Valve only backed out because they weren't equipped to deal with half a million angry neckbeards portraying themselves as ten million angry neckbeards.

This time around, Valve is not part of the equation, so there's no way Bethesda will back down this time. They've been putting up with us for 2 decades, and they know how to handle us. And they'll find a way to monetize amateur modding whether we like it or not.

MajorFreak wrote: dude, you really ought to stop speculating wildly. Both valve and bethesda have spoken in the past, and neither of their articles on the subject speak of anything but a joint decision.

http://www.bethblog.com/2015/04/27/why-were-trying-paid-skyrim-mods-on-steam/
and
https://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/208632365253244218

and from what little i've read of past comments, yours were the ones needing moderation

It's not speculation, son.

it's common sense. And I'm sorry you can't see the forest for the trees.

[phantompally76]

In response to post #39589525. #39589815, #39590450, #39601020, #39602615, #39613970, #39621735, #39629690, #39630145, #39632030 are all replies on the same post.

kevindad1 wrote: Pretty much everything has the "release now, fix later" treatment. That's not to say that what you're saying is wrong though.

kevindad1 wrote: And why are people talking about paid mods? Bethesda knows that that failed. Do you really think that they'll attempt that again? How would they make it work anyway.

phantompally76 wrote: The same way EA gets away with charging full price for half a Star Wars: Battlefront and then ransoming the other half as DLC behind a paywall.

Because average gamer$ will purchase them without questioning the legality, morality or stupidity of the software companies.

Paid mods already exist. Some of you just don't realize it yet.

kevindad1 wrote: Who said that EA got away with that? Better yet, what does your reply have anything to do with what I said? (Minus the last part, that is obviously not true)

phantompally76 wrote: They're still getting away with it. And they're going to get away with it again when they release the Battlefront sequel. And they won't change their business model, because they don't have to.

But if you don't want me to bring EA into it, fine. Bethesda didn't fail at paid mods. To the contrary, they've already succeeded. You just haven't stopped to realize it yet.

Most of us here paid for a mod disguised as DLC from Bethesda nearly 4 years ago, a derivative work based (heavily) off a free mod. Some in this community STILL refuse to purchase it (much to the chagrin of almost every mod author on the Nexus), leaving a very small minority of gamers with the ability to stand upon any sort of tangible moral high ground on this matter, but most of us own it (even if we got it on sale or in a bundle). Most of us own and use a paid mod uploaded by Bethesda based off someone else's work. Why this never came up during #modgate (and perhaps it did, but if so it was buried amongst the blatant hypocrisy and ASCII genitalia) is a little staggering.

So don't pretend to act like this is new territory. Bethesda has already charged the majority of us for a mod....the ultimate copyright-infringing paid mod.... and the majority of us willingly shelled out the cash because they called it DLC. Bethesda got away with it, and they will get away with it again.

And before the white knights retort "But that was totally different....", no. No different.

Just inconvenient.

kevindad1 wrote: 1. How is EA "still" getting away with it? It's more common to see people pissed at EA than at Bethesda.
2. Now I understand what you're saying about "paid mods". And now that I do know, I realize that what you said is just nonsense. You would rather use a (possibly) buggy mod that may mess up your game and/or give you crashes than the official less buggy (notice how I said less buggy) thing? Plus, it's only 5 bucks, you shouldn't really expect much.

phantompally76 wrote: Your definition of "less buggy" is not congruent with mine. Neither are your expectations.

It takes at least half a dozen other mods to make Hearthfire worth using (even with USLEEP), and even then there are still issues with the core "DLC".

But the point remains. Paid mods aren't around the corner.....they've been here for years.

MajorFreak wrote: he's a troll, kevindad1. i'm researching the old "why did bethesda remove paid skyrim mods" article on nexus (and he's right there in the thick of it as the moderator locked it) and he's basically one of those kids who's addicted to the reply button, using long words he found in the thesaurus, and basically living in a dream world where staying at the top of the comments section is all that matters

But, yeah, it's fascinating the whole "release now, fix later" treatment most companies treat their Q&A dept. with...it must drive those testers crazy as well.
As for paid mods, i'm pretty sure Dark0ne mentioned it in his article at some point, or at least if he didn't it sure was implied

phantompally76 wrote: That's not my motivation at all.

I simply care too much about this community to watch it destroy itself because of its own ignorance, short-sightedness, and impertinence.

And you will NOT fault me for that, MajorFreak. Nor for my writing skills. You get your say, and whether you like it or not, so do I.

And if you're going to stalk my post history like an obsessed lunatic, why not throw me a bone and give me some credit for predicting this storm was coming over a month ago.

MajorFreak wrote: case in point

Son, do you disagree that mod piracy is wrong? If not, then you and I have no quarrel. Stop trying to provoke an argument with me because you don't like my extensive lexicon.

[dobmc]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255, #39632075 are all replies on the same post.

dobmc wrote: With all this "set-up" you would think Bethesda is planning to bring paid mods to consoles.

Haha I'm just joking guys. Of course even Bethesda isn't desperate to sink that low.

Wait a minute.

midtek wrote: A side note:

I think that's not something morally sunken, or only comes from the desperate which cannot be accepted from the society. Hines made valid points about paid mod in his interviews. While some may disagree, or claim it is from greed, it still stands as a valid option. The question might be how much it will be a benefit and who benefits from it? Plus, if they don't do that in excellency, better not start from the beginning; that might be the thing everyone agrees.

dobmc wrote: Either way I don't think anyone is willing to let the modding community change, especially not when a company like Bethesda comes back after 14 years of hiatus and suddenly decides to be a boss of what's good for the community.

midtek wrote: yeah, I agree. It feels awkward when they just show up claiming that they have been through all these years with you, wanting to share 'the fruit of collaboration' with you when at the same time mods are getting stolen to the net. It's not like an evil company. They could try to build better relationship.

MajorFreak wrote: i think the question alot of us have, especially those like me who don't remember the era of skyrim paid mods, is: why did Bethesda take down that paid mod option and did they give a coherent reason for such that we know they've at least got a chance of remembering what the problem was and hopefully that means they've got a solution in mind (unless, of course, whoever took down the site was fired and the new guys have no clue)

phantompally76 wrote: Bethesda only changed their minds because Valve backed out. And Valve only backed out because they weren't equipped to deal with half a million angry neckbeards portraying themselves as ten million angry neckbeards.

This time around, Valve is not part of the equation, so there's no way Bethesda will back down this time. They've been putting up with us for 2 decades, and they know how to handle us. And they'll find a way to monetize amateur modding whether we like it or not.

MajorFreak wrote: dude, you really ought to stop speculating wildly. Both valve and bethesda have spoken in the past, and neither of their articles on the subject speak of anything but a joint decision.

http://www.bethblog.com/2015/04/27/why-were-trying-paid-skyrim-mods-on-steam/
and
https://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/208632365253244218

and from what little i've read of past comments, yours were the ones needing moderation

phantompally76 wrote: It's not speculation, son.

it's common sense. And I'm sorry you can't see the forest for the trees.

@MajorFreak
I remember reading somewhere from Valve that paid mods ended up being more of a loss than profit so that could be it. A word from Bethesda? Dunno lol. Considering how the profits were split (Bethesda received 45%) my only impression was damage-control.

Oh, nevermind. Looks like you got the info yourself. Edited June 21, 2016 by dobmc