On console mods, theft and Bethesda.net

[dobmc]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255, #39632075, #39632415, #39632810, #39633715, #39634365, #39634975, #39635260, #39636200 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?

Kalell 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.

MajorFreak wrote: @ Kalell: absolutely. i'm a minimum wage worker who has a rig that is pretty bare bones (no 4k textures for me) and i work hard to stay poor. I once, for a year, had a middle class career and OMG i was even able to donate to charities each month (and do tonnes of other stuff)

I think i bought unzip license and a few other keys during that time. In my mind, if i still had that career, i would be definitely hitting the donate key (especially for FNIS among others) more often than not after i endorsed the mod like i'm able to currently.

dobmc wrote: @Kalell
It's more than just "poor people having to find a different hobby". Mods aren't just made by a single person. You learn how to mod by reading tutorials written by similar mod authors, and alot of the essential mods require SKSE or FNIS. All are free as long as you don't be an ass and exploit the good-will of other mod authors.

Once paid mods becomes a necessity, expect people to become greedy. No more help, no more sharing, the once innocent community that was all about passion and good-will will be replaced by an hostile environment controlled by the greed for money.

Sounds like a wonderful idea doesn't it?

@MajorFreak
The only thing that I can think of is what Bethesda was saying about how paid mods would theoretically "increase" the quality of mods. That or how you are able to choose how much "more" you're able to pay for the mods.

Besides that I have no idea. That's actually a good question. Edited June 21, 2016 by dobmc

[MajorFreak]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255, #39632075, #39632415, #39632810, #39633715, #39634365, #39634975, #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?

Kalell 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.

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

Oh, okay. Let me read what you wrote.

@ Kalell: absolutely. i'm a minimum wage worker who has a rig that is pretty bare bones (no 4k textures for me) and i work hard to stay poor. I once, for a year, had a middle class career and OMG i was even able to donate to charities each month (and do tonnes of other stuff)

I think i bought unzip license and a few other keys during that time. In my mind, if i still had that career, i would be definitely hitting the donate key (especially for FNIS among others) more often than not after i endorsed the mod like i'm able to currently.

[dobmc]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255, #39632075, #39632415, #39632810, #39633715, #39634365, #39634975, #39635050, #39635260, #39636935 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?

Kalell 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.

dobmc wrote: @MajorFreak
The only thing that I can think of is what Bethesda was saying about how paid mods would theoretically "increase" the quality of mods. That or how you are able to choose how much "more" you're able to pay for the mods.

Besides that I have no idea. That's actually a good question.

MajorFreak wrote: @ Kalell: absolutely. i'm a minimum wage worker who has a rig that is pretty bare bones (no 4k textures for me) and i work hard to stay poor. I once, for a year, had a middle class career and OMG i was even able to donate to charities each month (and do tonnes of other stuff)

I think i bought unzip license and a few other keys during that time. In my mind, if i still had that career, i would be definitely hitting the donate key (especially for FNIS among others) more often than not after i endorsed the mod like i'm able to currently.

Kalell wrote: That is true, especially with the dev kits, script extenders, and the engine itself, but the other tools people use to make mods are also used for other things. The majority of what I've learned about the tools I use I didn't learn from tutorials specific to Bethesda's games. If you need to learn something it's usually out there somewhere, you just have to know where to look. People not sharing will definitely make the info harder to find though.

Edit: And I do agree with you, it would ruin the community. I am in no way in support of paid mods. If they start charging for mods I will move on from Bethesda's games before the lack of sharing even becomes an issue. lol

@Kalell
It's more than just "poor people having to find a different hobby". Mods aren't just made by a single person. You learn how to mod by reading tutorials written by similar mod authors, and alot of the essential mods require SKSE or FNIS. All are free as long as you don't be an ass and exploit the good-will of other mod authors.

Once paid mods becomes a necessity, expect people to become greedy. No more help, no more sharing, the once innocent community that was all about passion and good-will will be replaced by an hostile environment controlled by the greed for money.

Sounds like a wonderful idea doesn't it?

Edit:
Me too lol Edited June 21, 2016 by dobmc

[Kalell]

In response to post #39610370. #39611030, #39622600, #39625550, #39629360, #39629840, #39630255, #39632075, #39632415, #39632810, #39633715, #39634365, #39634975, #39635050, #39635260, #39636200 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?

Kalell 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.

dobmc wrote: @MajorFreak
The only thing that I can think of is what Bethesda was saying about how paid mods would theoretically "increase" the quality of mods. That or how you are able to choose how much "more" you're able to pay for the mods.

Besides that I have no idea. That's actually a good question.

MajorFreak wrote: @ Kalell: absolutely. i'm a minimum wage worker who has a rig that is pretty bare bones (no 4k textures for me) and i work hard to stay poor. I once, for a year, had a middle class career and OMG i was even able to donate to charities each month (and do tonnes of other stuff)

I think i bought unzip license and a few other keys during that time. In my mind, if i still had that career, i would be definitely hitting the donate key (especially for FNIS among others) more often than not after i endorsed the mod like i'm able to currently.

dobmc wrote: @Kalell
It's more than just "poor people having to find a different hobby". Mods aren't just made by a single person. You learn how to mod by reading tutorials written by similar mod authors, and alot of the essential mods require SKSE or FNIS. All are free as long as you don't be an ass and exploit the good-will of other mod authors.

Once paid mods becomes a necessity, expect people to become greedy. No more help, no more sharing, the once innocent community that was all about passion and good-will will be replaced by an hostile environment controlled by the greed for money.

Sounds like a wonderful idea doesn't it?

That is true, especially with the dev kits, script extenders, and the engine itself, but the other tools people use to make mods are also used for other things. The majority of what I've learned about the tools I use I didn't learn from tutorials specific to Bethesda's games. If you need to learn something it's usually out there somewhere, you just have to know where to look. People not sharing will definitely make the info harder to find though.

Edit: And I do agree with you, it would ruin the community. I am in no way in support of paid mods. If they start charging for mods I will move on from Bethesda's games before the lack of sharing even becomes an issue. lol Edited June 21, 2016 by Kalell

[paynexkiller]

A guy posted a Mod that has MY tattoo in it. I reported it, and nothing happened. No modderator got in contact with me. I posted that he stole content from my DeviantArt page, and yet nothing happened. So, yeah. f*#@ing hypocrite much?

[makham]

Well said. Honestly I had given little thought to the significant investment made to this site although I knew it was large. If only Bethesda had shown similar commitment. If they had wanted the easier way out, I think they could have easily subcontracted out to Nexus. It would have probably cost them much less, been more effective and shown a commitment to supporting "the community".

For the control they obviously wanted to retain it doesn't seem like they're getting much in return.

[MrJoseCuervo]

So I assume Bethesda would be ok if I re-bundled Far Harbor and posted it on Bethesda.net and asked for donations. I am sure they will treat me like they treat other thieves on their network. Meaning they will ignore me and leave it posted with no response from anyone.

[gingersnapples]

Sometimes i start to regain my faith in humanity.

 

 

then something like this happens, and i remember why i don't like the write-off of a species i belong to.

 

 

oh well. at least the salt is delicious.

[AFTshock]

As a newcomer watching this unfold is just depressing. I want to yell at the elitists blaming every single console player for the actions of a few assholes and I want to yell at the entitled assholes who thing stealing is OK as long as you give credit after the fact or spam modders with requests like they can just click their fingers and a mod is suddenly made, although to be fair some people don't know how long it takes to model, UV map, script and so on.

I say Bethesda removes console mods until they sort everything out.

[Nubblecakes]

Great article. The "father-who-left" analogy hits the nail right on the head. I think Bethesda need to get the right people involved in the modding community in order to get an agreeable system in place. There should definitely be a proper channel of communication between places like the Nexus and Bethesda's own platform, but they absolutely need to get a handle on the rampant mod theft before anything else. The theft issue HAS to be priority number one.