On console mods, theft and Bethesda.net

[MajorFreak]

In response to post #39589525. #39589815, #39590450, #39601020, #39602615, #39613970, #39621735, #39629690, #39630145, #39632030, #39632205 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

phantompally76 wrote: 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.

i'll quote shezie (last comment right before the old nexus article got locked because people were being douches)
"You really are living in another reality aren't you, you have absolutely no idea of what I am thinking or what I believe. At this point I am just going to continue reporting your posts that have become nothing more then personal attacks."

And funny enough, it took me about 30 seconds to realize it was YOU that last comment was aimed at. imagine my surprise [/irony]

[MajorFreak]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255, #39632075, #39632415 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.

dobmc wrote: @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.

thanks, mate. do you remember anything more that Bethesda might have said about why they thought 'curating' was a bad idea and if they had any idea on how to do things differently (other than, what i'm starting to assume, is a complete lack of anything)

[phantompally76]

In response to post #39589525. #39589815, #39590450, #39601020, #39602615, #39613970, #39621735, #39629690, #39630145, #39632030, #39632205, #39632700 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

phantompally76 wrote: 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.

MajorFreak wrote: i'll quote shezie (last comment right before the old nexus article got locked because people were being douches)
"You really are living in another reality aren't you, you have absolutely no idea of what I am thinking or what I believe. At this point I am just going to continue reporting your posts that have become nothing more then personal attacks."

And funny enough, it took me about 30 seconds to realize it was YOU that last comment was aimed at. imagine my surprise [/irony]

What's your point, son?

[vortexhlp]

Paid mods = potential for great talent to make great mods DLC-level type of mods. I believe that something as big as Dawnguard or Dragonborn can be made by fans but those willing to go through and treat it like a business (which is absolutely fine) can potentially make a living expanding games for tens of hours to hundred of hours. Look at Skywind for instance, it could take maybe a year to develop or less and the staff could be paid with sales of $10 for the mod. I don't know about you but $10 sounds like a steal to get a quality DLC that is essentially a whole new game.

 

I don't think it's as bad as what some people make it seem, I think it's just the nexus being worried that mods will be taken away to beth's website where people can monetize their projects there instead of here. Remember, nexus makes a profit from your hard work and if beth takes it away, of course they'll get their panties in a ruffle.

[dobmc]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255, #39632075, #39632415, #39632810 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.

dobmc wrote: @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.

MajorFreak wrote: thanks, mate. do you remember anything more that Bethesda might have said about why they thought 'curating' was a bad idea and if they had any idea on how to do things differently (other than, what i'm starting to assume, is a complete lack of anything)

Nope. Pretty much the articles you linked are what Bethesda said about the whole ordeal.

[dobmc]

In response to post #39633605.

vortexhlp wrote: Paid mods = potential for great talent to make great mods DLC-level type of mods. I believe that something as big as Dawnguard or Dragonborn can be made by fans but those willing to go through and treat it like a business (which is absolutely fine) can potentially make a living expanding games for tens of hours to hundred of hours. Look at Skywind for instance, it could take maybe a year to develop or less and the staff could be paid with sales of $10 for the mod. I don't know about you but $10 sounds like a steal to get a quality DLC that is essentially a whole new game.

I don't think it's as bad as what some people make it seem, I think it's just the nexus being worried that mods will be taken away to beth's website where people can monetize their projects there instead of here. Remember, nexus makes a profit from your hard work and if beth takes it away, of course they'll get their panties in a ruffle.

Bethesda = Fine Brothers

:^)

[MajorFreak]

In response to post #39633605. #39633845 is also a reply to the same post.

vortexhlp wrote: Paid mods = potential for great talent to make great mods DLC-level type of mods. I believe that something as big as Dawnguard or Dragonborn can be made by fans but those willing to go through and treat it like a business (which is absolutely fine) can potentially make a living expanding games for tens of hours to hundred of hours. Look at Skywind for instance, it could take maybe a year to develop or less and the staff could be paid with sales of $10 for the mod. I don't know about you but $10 sounds like a steal to get a quality DLC that is essentially a whole new game.

I don't think it's as bad as what some people make it seem, I think it's just the nexus being worried that mods will be taken away to beth's website where people can monetize their projects there instead of here. Remember, nexus makes a profit from your hard work and if beth takes it away, of course they'll get their panties in a ruffle.

dobmc wrote: Bethesda = Fine Brothers

:^)

i dunno if it's a profit. i'll bet if you look it's a very small key group of individuals that can barely pay the expenses of a high traffic site like this, and probably have to shell out they own hard earned cash to support their hobby (which is helping folks like us play a modded game)

If you read the article itself you'll see that the problem WAS and IS as bad as it seems (if you mean the "someone stealing a free mod from nexus, posting it on the official site, and getting the original banned by claiming the stealer was the author".) Edited June 21, 2016 by MajorFreak

[MajorFreak]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255, #39632075, #39632415, #39632810, #39633715 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.

dobmc wrote: @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.

MajorFreak wrote: thanks, mate. do you remember anything more that Bethesda might have said about why they thought 'curating' was a bad idea and if they had any idea on how to do things differently (other than, what i'm starting to assume, is a complete lack of anything)

dobmc wrote: Nope. Pretty much the articles you linked are what Bethesda said about the whole ordeal.

damn. okay, well, do you know what Dark0ne means by "curating"? i'll take your impression of what it means, if you know. i'll do some digging myself cause i'm curious as to why Bethesda hated that option (assuming that if they hated the idea, without needing to explain it on their blog for us, then i figure i would hate it too)

"It had to be open, not curated like the current models. At every step along the way with mods, we have had many opportunities to step in and control things, and decided not to. We wanted to let our players decide what is good, bad, right, and wrong. We will not pass judgment on what they do."

alright, so 'curated like the current models'...which current models? no game has EVER been modded so much. period. let's ignore that and focus on the question: what were they referring to? Edited June 21, 2016 by MajorFreak

[Kalell]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255, #39632075, #39632415, #39632810, #39633715, #39634365, #39635050 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.

dobmc wrote: @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.

MajorFreak wrote: thanks, mate. do you remember anything more that Bethesda might have said about why they thought 'curating' was a bad idea and if they had any idea on how to do things differently (other than, what i'm starting to assume, is a complete lack of anything)

dobmc wrote: Nope. Pretty much the articles you linked are what Bethesda said about the whole ordeal.

MajorFreak wrote: damn. okay, well, do you know what Dark0ne means by "curating"? i'll take your impression of what it means, if you know. i'll do some digging myself cause i'm curious as to why Bethesda hated that option (assuming that if they hated the idea, without needing to explain it on their blog for us, then i figure i would hate it too)

"It had to be open, not curated like the current models. At every step along the way with mods, we have had many opportunities to step in and control things, and decided not to. We wanted to let our players decide what is good, bad, right, and wrong. We will not pass judgment on what they do."

alright, so 'curated like the current models'...which current models? no game has EVER been modded so much. period. let's ignore that and focus on the question: what were they referring to?

dobmc wrote: What do you mean by, "what Dark0ne has said about curating"?

Oh, okay. Let me read what you wrote.

Paid mods are both good and bad. The good is that mod authors would get something back from their hard work. The bad is that all the people that don't make enough to buy more than one game a year and have depended on mods for entertainment would have to find another hobby.

Having to pay for mods would barely effect those that have extra money at the end of the month. It's those that don't that would be hurt by this. And let's be honest, the industry doesn't care about people that barely have enough money to buy their games. It's a business and the people that have extra money to spend are the ones they're after. I honestly hate the idea of paid mods, but from a business perspective they'ed be negligent to not at least try and make it work, even if it does reek of greed. Edited June 21, 2016 by Kalell

[MajorFreak]

the upsetting thing about this whole thing is that it looks like Bethesda figures Mod Authors have no lives and spend their free time filing DMCAs. I mean, it just implies Bethesda really has no clue about maintaining and supporting games, just pumping them out half-finished and being so clueless about how the community can help police stolen mods...their silence on the matter speaks volumes

 

...besides a mythical "curating" reference that doesn't seem to allude to the steam system of curating, but something else along the lines of how other modded games are controlled completely by the developers (at least that's what i take away from their cryptic blog post)

 

Actually, what i take it for is a veiled threat against LoversLab type mods...or even bouncing boobs and butts. who knows. Can you imagine the shitstorm if they looked responsible for 'Defeat'?

Edited June 21, 2016 by MajorFreak