When Beth wins, and mods cost money...

[Reneer]

Firstly, Google was added as part of that list because of their behavior. For example Google purchased youtube 1 year after its creation because they saw the money to be made. After googles purchase of youtube they forced content creators to pay 50% of their total revenue to google in order to both use youtube itself and to cover for the search engine that directs people to their content. It is very easy to imagine a situation where google, either via lawsuit or aggressive purchases, forces itself into the paid modding market the same way they have forced themselves into literally every other market that involves games or technology. To ignore this would mean you're essentially ignoring all of googles past behavior as a large company.

Here's the thing: Google doesn't make you pay money to upload content. You only need to pay Google / YouTube money when you want to monetize your own content, just as you would have to pay Bethesda X percentage if you wanted to sell your mods on Bethesda.net. Simply because you can imagine a situation occurring doesn't make it more likely to happen.

 

Secondly Beth.net doesnt cut anyone out of the equation at all. There are loads of ways other companies such as valve could enter the market. Creating their own mod distribution platform for example.

Simple: Bethesda makes a requirement in their EULA for the Creation Kit that states that they are the only "publisher" where you can sell your mods, because they own the IP of the game you are modding for and thus deserve a percentage. Any other "mod distributor" or mod author that tried to sell mods would be in violation of Bethesda's EULA and would get sued. It's exactly why no one sells their mods now - because Bethesda wouldn't get any money from that sale and they specifically disallow it in their EULAs.

 

And before you say "they can't do that in an EULA", simply substitute "signed and dated legal contract" for permission to use the Creation Kit.

 

Thirdly, there is a huge difference between exchanging information and assets that are already free and giving away assets or information someone intends to use in order to gain revenue. If you honestly think a mod author would give away assets he is using to make money to someone else to make money with I disagree. Doing so would literally undercut his own bottom line which most people simply wont do.

I could point to hundreds of real-world examples where a company - whose sole purpose is to make money - releases their previously paid content as open source. Volition released the source code for Freespace 2 in 2002 under a noncommercial license. id Software has been releasing their game engines as open source a few years after releasing games. There is literally a whole cottage industry of content creators who make stuff and give it away for free and don't care if you use it for your own commercial or noncommercial projects.

 

As for the mod publishers thing you only to look at how youtube works, or how twitch works, or how E-sports works, or how game development works, or how literally any other aspect of the gaming industry that makes significant sums of money works to know that publishers will start to pop up. The moment people started making large amounts of money on youtube Machinima turned itself into a publisher for channels and thats just one example. I dont know how you can possibly envision any part of content creation in the video games industry without publishers honestly.

Ever heard of indie video game developers? Many of them publish their own games themselves. And there's a whole bunch of application developers who sell their work, without a publisher, on Google and Apple software markets. Oh, and let's not forget the authors who self-publish their novels on Amazon.

 

Again I would not cut valve or other companies out of the market just because of bethesda.net. If they think they can make enough money a large company like valve will find some way to enter the market. Thats just a fact in general. Even if valve and all other companies are somehow locked out of the market (unlikely) this isnt a counterpoint to my main point which is that mod authors should seriously consider what they are getting in a paid modding deal and that adding money into the equation would drastically change the community and the way it has worked for 14 years now. Its just unavoidable.

I disagree with your "facts". Finally, how about you let us mod authors make our own decisions on what agreements we enter into.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Reneer

[NorthWolf]

In this post I write a novella to explain why I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat while preparing to sculpt my tinfoil hat's antenna. Will anyone read it? Find it out in Zanity's next conspiracy post, 3 PM Pacific, 6 PM Eastern.

 

 

Because in my point of view, modding is a hobby and benefits from having a relatively open community. Creating a mod should be something you do for fun and to engage people and should have absolutely nothing to do with making money. And my statements regarding spec work are completely honest concerns on my part. How is it better that Bethesda devalues your work by giving you a pittance for it?

 

Bethesda currently doesn't give us anything. Mod users barely give us anything. I'd rather a system where I can set my own price for a mod and have to give half of what I make to Bethesda than to make nothing. Your belief that modding should be just a hobby is fine. But please don't try and tell me what I should believe about it.

 

 

Eck, I should apologize and make it clear: I did a very poor job with grammar and phrasing there and wasn't trying to assert my opinion as fact. So sorry, and thanks for being so level-headed in your response. To try to do a better job this time around: my opinion is that modding is better served as a hobby and that it will likely be detrimental to the community at large if there's a strong financial aspect to modding. But I do recognize it's an opinion and if paid modding is going to be inevitable I do hope my concerns are proven wrong because having companies more strongly motivated to support modding due to the potential revenue would be excellent for everyone. I also should really get across: I have nothing against people who want to see paid modding become a reality and I don't have a problem with mod authors wanting to be paid for their mods, part of my concern is actually that at the end of the day this won't really help content creators get paid so much as devalue their work.

 

To elaborate, I really do feel like Bethesda already uses the modding community as a crutch on the PC platform and that this is not a positive sign in terms of their business strategy. Other companies have hired successful and talented mod authors and given them fully paid positions. There are some genuine success stories (i.e. DayZ is an easy one, plenty of others). The real problem I have with the potential for paid modding in this specific case as opposed to my general opinions that "I don't like it because I'm afraid of the implications on the modding community at large" is that I'm not really convinced that Bethesda is the right company to usher in this brave new world if such change is inevitable.

 

Their handling of the Skyrim fiasco and now their handling of the Fallout 4 fiasco doesn't exactly make me feel like they're equipped with the community presence to actually work with mod authors that are treading new water with genuine, legal ramifications and where a mod author's stolen work is now stolen money. For example WhiskeyRiver2 mentioned how much revenue "Modern Firearms" would have theoretically produced. I'm not slandering the authors of the mod when I say this because I recognize how hard it is to avoid these mistakes, but if I remember correctly that's the same mod that has been taken down for having assets that weren't properly licensed (if I've been wrongly informed, I'm very sorry!). In the realm of modding at large, that's not necessarily a big problem -- Nexus takes it seriously, which is good, but the Nexus won't take it as seriously as a litigious company whose assets have been used illegally. All of a sudden the quoted $60,000 in earnings would quickly disappear into legal fees and payments unless Bethesda had some system in place to handle claims. If this feels like I'm overstating how bad this could be, consider the YouTube.com claims system and all of the controversy surrounding that (I would find links but it's a huge topic in and of itself) or just how genuinely litigious some companies can be (once upon a time using a GIF without paying licensing fees could get you slapped with a civil suit, for example).

 

If Bethesda can't protect mod authors from theft in a timely then I'm not convinced they'll do any better helping mod authors understand how to create content that they can legally monetize nor will they do a good job curating it for both the author's benefit and the community's benefit, even if Bethesda is making money on it. Sure, the potential revenue will motivate Bethesda. They're a company before you think I'm accusing them of being the devil but it doesn't change the fact that they do not have a good track record with community moderation or interaction.

 

At the end of the day I'm also not particularly convinced they will give mod authors a fair portion of the profits which, while you might be viewing this from the perspective of "it's nice to get money," which I can understand, it's also worth considering that it potentially devalues creating content at large depending on just how fairly Bethesda handles negotiations with the mod authors and how much their actions set a precedent moving forward. Consider the situation in the design industry at large and you might at least get an idea of where I'm coming from, even if you might think it's paranoia on my part. To tack this on, as well, I don't want to seem like I'm backpedaling: I'd be worried about this no matter who was leading the charge and it's not that I dislike Bethesda by any means. This situation has a lot of potential pitfalls for anyone... which is why I don't support it.

 

Though, even I think I'm probably jumping the gun sometimes and, hey, maybe it will just end up with a lot of top tier paid mods and Bethesda will get its act together and treat both ends of the community fairly (both consumers and content creators). I'm just more worried that in a decade you'll see Bethesda holding a contest where you win a GOTY edition of "Fallout 6: Rad Free or Nuke Hard" and the "honor" of your mod getting bundled with a paid content pack. Which you don't get money from. Slippery slope, etc. etc.

 

TL;DR: I did a poor job conveying myself and sorry for seeming like I was just asserting my opinion as fact. I worry about paid modding not just because it could hurt the community but because it could be worse in the long time if somebody is trying to make a living doing the kind of work they would do making mods professionally.

 

 

 

 

Because in my point of view, modding is a hobby and benefits from having a relatively open community. Creating a mod should be something you do for fun and to engage people and should have absolutely nothing to do with making money. And my statements regarding spec work are completely honest concerns on my part. How is it better that Bethesda devalues your work by giving you a pittance for it?

 

You don't get to decide whether someone else is allowed to make money off it. And as I said multiple times, The amount of effort being put into a mod is limited unless money is involved. Modders will work harder, much harder on something they will get paid for. Getting paid for the countless hours of work adds value to a mod, because hard cash is worth more than a thank you on a forum. Getting thanked and recognition on a forum is very nice indeed, but it does not beat getting paid. So stop acting like money is poison. And Bethesda knows that. They are anticipating the trend of paid mods just like Valve does. This will not make free mods disappear, but mods below a certain quality treshold will be free, because the mod author cant or wont for time constraint fix all the rough edges that a paid mod would not be allowed to have.

 

And to what rener said. About mods breaking. Most mods do not break on new game updates. Unless they use hacky tools like the tools used before the creation kit came out. I never used those tools, and I think they are great tools that allowed early modding. But it is not Bethesda's job to make sure these mods do not break on new updates.

 

 

 

To shorten the apology to Reneer I made above: I recognize I have done a poor job conveying that I was expressing an opinion and I apologize. I was not trying to state my opinion as fact. Obviously I do stick by my opinion, but I'm genuinely trying to engage in a conversation, not just throw out assertions. That said, I still feel you've misunderstood my post beyond the realm of "I phrased it badly" and into the realm that you are attacking a strawman. I'll still address your points and hopefully clarify my own point of view.

 

For one, no, I do not get to decide if someone else is allowed to try to monetize their work and I never asserted that. I can understand why you might jump to this conclusion but at no point did I say "you can't monetize your work". Part of my post is actually expressing concern for the value of a mod author's work. And that's why I don't understand how you came to the conclusions you did. There's no "money is poison" in my post. It's about money and about being fair with money. I touch on this in my response to Reneer but spec work is an extremely real problem for designers and seriously impacts their livelihood. Why do I bring up spec work? Because part of my honest fear is that this realm of paid mod authors could easily end up with a situation where talented but inexperienced young individuals create mods and don't realize the genuine value of their work which means content as a whole is suddenly much less valuable.

 

I mean, sure, you could hire this clearly skilled modeller or level designer but... why bother? Instead let the community churn out content for $0.49 a download. No need to pay benefits or an annual salary. Yeah, okay, I admit it's an exaggeration but I'm trying to point out the potential negatives this poses.

 

So why is my version where only a few people get paid better? Because those talented people actually get paid honestly for doing good work and the value of their profession is still respected. Bethesda is a company and is going to pick good methods to make money, that's fine, but if mod authors don't actually value their work it could easily end up in a spec work situation. Again, if you think this is purely in the realm of fantasy, read up about the spec work situation in the design world and maybe I'll seem a little less like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat (I prefer to think of it as a hair extension).

 

So why is it better that a mod author's mod is worth $0.00? How is that not devaluing their work? Because right now if a game company wants to hire somebody who creates content that they can make money on they have to pay them a competitive wage. It's not that the mod isn't valuable, it's that the mod isn't trying to compete with the industry in terms of the financial value of content. It is its own sphere. In some ways the mod is more valuable free than paid -- in a world of free mods, they're a valuable resume item if they meet certain standards of quality. In the world if paid mods that gets much more questionable depending on how paid modding changes the landscape. By attaching a financial value to mods you have suddenly created a situation where a bunch of inexperienced people who have no actual basis for understanding the value of their work in the industry are having a major impact on how valuable work is.

 

But to anticipate an argument: this is pure paranoia, and I'm really overreacting. The crop of mod authors will continue to do their work the same as they always have and they'll just get paid instead of not getting paid. Except even that's not true. By creating a financial incentive you will genuine change the landscape of the community around the game in question and anybody who wants to just flip a switch and make their mod paid is unlikely to enjoy what they actually encounter. What happens when their mod is stolen and they see next to no revenue because people just use a disreputable but popular site that allows their mod to be hosted freely? What happens when their mod is subject to a legal claim? What happens when somebody simply takes their idea, recreates it, and just distributes the mod freely (and perfectly legally)? What happens when people expect customer service and due to regional laws either Bethesda or the mod author are obligated to provide it or deal with fines?

 

Moving mods into the realm of business turns them into that. They're a business and mod authors are now contributing to a marketplace with all of the obligations (and pitfalls) of doing so. It will be competitive and a lot of people are going to undercut, steal ideas, and use underhanded tactics. If you got into modding because it's fun, you're probably not going to have fun when you start having to treat it as a business. If you got into modding to make a portfolio and now want to make some money to support yourself you should seriously ponder if this helps or harms your professional prospects in the long term.

 

Which is why I want to address a point you made: you assert pretty strongly that hard cash is worth more than a thank you on a forum. Getting thanked doesn't beat getting paid. And I really don't agree in the slightest. I work as a software engineer for a living and my professional work involves sitting down and fulfilling a specification for a client as well as making sure they're satisfied with my work. It's not a thankless job and I enjoy it, most of the people and clients I interact with are polite and pleasant people. But then I come home and spend a few hours every so often helping people on forums with technical problems or contributing to projects, which, yes, includes mods. I do not want to be paid for it. Why?

 

For one, and I know this will come across as arrogant, but I honestly doubt I could be paid enough to really care. This isn't just me tooting my horn and saying I'm a big, wealthy, successful genius: I'm not exceptional and a lot of the people who make mods on the Nexus could probably do my job or learn to do it within a few months. In this back-and-forth I'm not just saying mod authors need to value their work as some throwaway line, I really mean it. You could probably do my job better than me so why should you be sitting around getting peanuts from Bethesda instead? If Bethesda pays you fairly, sure, great. But I'm dubious they will.

 

Secondly, I do it because I enjoy helping people and seeing creative projects get fulfilled. I enjoy knowing I made a small contribution to an interesting project or that something I made was fun for some people. It has none of the stress or obligation of my job and a lot of the fun parts. It's also a lot different having a client say "thanks for completing the project" as opposed to somebody on a forum saying "thanks for helping me finally get this game working". Yeah, sure, the former is professionally gratifying but the latter is better in some ways because I know somebody is getting to have fun instead of pulling their hair out.

 

The reason I harp on this point is because it really doesn't rub me the right way that you somehow think introducing money to this will just make it better. For some people who want to treat it kind of like a business? Yes. But pretending like money is a universal spice that improves things? No. It has nothing to do with me being anti-capitalist since you seem to have inferred that from my post. It has everything to do with why I prefer seeing modding as a hobby as opposed to a job and seriously recognizing the obligations that come with monetization.

 

You also assert that mods below a certain quality threshold will be free. Yeah, some of them. I think you'll be surprised how many people who make quality mods actually do the same thing for their day job and mod because it gives them a creative outlet where they don't have a project lead/professional client/incompetent manager breathing down their necks and aren't going to want the headache of dealing with all the problems money brings (and not enough money at that). I doubt free mod quality will drop substantially and I doubt paid mod quality will be consistently higher as you imply. Will we probably see more, cool mods? Sure. Is it possible I'm wrong and paid modding will usher in a lot of great content? I can definitely see reasons why it would. I'm just in no way convinced that is how it will actually work. It's an ideal, not a reality.

 

TL;DR: I am not trying to assert my opinions as fact and I apologize for doing a poor job conveying that but I feel as if you're not actually attacking my post, flawed as it is, so much as attacking a strawman. I have nothing against money and am not treating money like poison. Treating money like a spice that will instantly usher in nothing but improvement isn't treating the situation realistically: it will change the landscape, possibly for the better, but it will have its downsides no matter what. Finally, your opinion that money is somehow going to make modding a more gratifying experience is misguided and assumes your opinion is a fact. Some people, like myself, like this as a hobby and only as a hobby.

[iXenite]

It might work for consoles but I doubt it'll work for PC's.

 

I've seen this remark made numerous times before, and it never makes any sense. Care to try and explain why consoles would likely be more inclined to buy mods than PC users?

[NorthWolf]

 

Firstly, Google was added as part of that list because of their behavior. For example Google purchased youtube 1 year after its creation because they saw the money to be made. After googles purchase of youtube they forced content creators to pay 50% of their total revenue to google in order to both use youtube itself and to cover for the search engine that directs people to their content. It is very easy to imagine a situation where google, either via lawsuit or aggressive purchases, forces itself into the paid modding market the same way they have forced themselves into literally every other market that involves games or technology. To ignore this would mean you're essentially ignoring all of googles past behavior as a large company.

 

Secondly Beth.net doesnt cut anyone out of the equation at all. There are loads of ways other companies such as valve could enter the market. Creating their own mod distribution platform for example.

 

Thirdly, there is a huge difference between exchanging information and assets that are already free and giving away assets or information someone intends to use in order to gain revenue. If you honestly think a mod author would give away assets he is using to make money to someone else to make money with I disagree. Doing so would literally undercut his own bottom line which most people simply wont do.

 

As for the mod publishers thing you only to look at how youtube works, or how twitch works, or how E-sports works, or how game development works, or how literally any other aspect of the gaming industry that makes significant sums of money works to know that publishers will start to pop up. The moment people started making large amounts of money on youtube Machinima turned itself into a publisher for channels and thats just one example. I dont know how you can possibly envision any part of content creation in the video games industry without publishers honestly.

 

Again I would not cut valve or other companies out of the market just because of bethesda.net. If they think they can make enough money a large company like valve will find some way to enter the market. Thats just a fact in general. Even if valve and all other companies are somehow locked out of the market (unlikely) this isnt a counterpoint to my main point which is that mod authors should seriously consider what they are getting in a paid modding deal and that adding money into the equation would drastically change the community and the way it has worked for 14 years now. Its just unavoidable.

 

I don't actually see where you're coming from with regarding Google and YouTube. Yeah, Google is a big company but so is Coca-Cola. Neither has a stake nor has shown interest in acquiring a stake in this particular industry (unless Coca-Cola suddenly emulates Bawls, amirite?). Even if paid modding became a reality, who cares if Google is the one who makes it a reality? I can't see a reason why the company that makes the first big "breakthrough" in paid modding is necessarily relevant in the context you're talking about it in. Sure, it makes me more or less confident, but overall does it matter?

 

Furthermore, YouTube is a bad comparison in this regard. YouTube is wholly focused on providing content created by other people and not in any way focused on creating its own content in a meaningful way. While in some ways the contracts we're talking about parallel one another, YouTube is largely responsible for enabling and popularizing online video media and providing a viable financial foothold for independent content creators. If anything drawing comparisons to YouTube in this fashion is more an argument in favor of paid modding, and one I'd personally concede is a good one even though I think the harm outweighs the benefit in the long term. Not everyone can sit down and make Minecraft or Stardew Valley just the same way not every content creator can sit down and create a movie... but they can make a funny 10 minute video just the same as a modder can sit down and spend a week making a supplemental content pack.

 

Obviously from my other posts I can agree in some ways: YouTube has practices that aren't always very fair and that's exactly why I'm concerned about Bethesda trying to lead the charge in the realm of paid modding. They don't inspire confidence.

 

Also, Bethesda and Zenimax do have a final say on who gets to be part of the equation in terms of paid modding. It's actually a reason why paid modding could be a really bad thing, so I don't get why you're treating this like having other companies that could offer financial incentives to create mods for the same game are a bad thing. One issue with paid modding is that a single company essentially holds a monopoly for creating content for that platform, which is fair given they developed the platform but not necessarily good for the platform or those creating paid content for the platform. It means that you're going to have a really fun time getting a competitive contract. YouTube has to compete because you can take your video elsewhere. Bethesda does not. Your plugin works on that one game. Well, maybe two given Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, but you get the point.

 

The above actually applies only moreso to your other points. A wide variety of publishers competing over the same demographic means they have to also compete for the best talent. They have to offer good wages and fair contracts. The problem is that all of these comparisons don't work because we're talking about software-dependent content that works only on a highly controlled piece of software. Don't like Twitch? Go somewhere else, find their competitor, try to make their competitor more famous. Don't think Activision is giving you a fair salary? Go work for someone else that is willing to pay you. Games aren't really the same. You've spent 10 years modding Bethesda games and you know if you go elsewhere it's a big step back depending on what your "field" is.

 

It's not as if Bethesda can just say, "We'll give you 5%, deal with it." Bethesda still has to exist within the realm of reason or people will leave anyway. But it doesn't have to be anywhere near as competitive.

 

But, yes, I do agree the money is going to change the community, I think everyone in this thread probably agrees with that. I agree that I think it won't be for the better, though I don't think it's for the reasons you've listed.

 

Edit:

 

 

I've seen this remark made numerous times before, and it never makes any sense. Care to try and explain why consoles would likely be more inclined to buy mods than PC users?

 

 

 

Easier to have someone pay for a mod, download it, and then redistribute it freely on a PC. Doubt it will kill paid modding by any means but it will probably be a persistent problem with piracy no different than piracy of commercial software. Probably a little more prevalent because I can't think of a good way for Bethesda to guard against this, but they might find a way.

Edited July 10, 2016 by NorthWolf

[Alexotero1219]

 

Firstly, Google was added as part of that list because of their behavior. For example Google purchased youtube 1 year after its creation because they saw the money to be made. After googles purchase of youtube they forced content creators to pay 50% of their total revenue to google in order to both use youtube itself and to cover for the search engine that directs people to their content. It is very easy to imagine a situation where google, either via lawsuit or aggressive purchases, forces itself into the paid modding market the same way they have forced themselves into literally every other market that involves games or technology. To ignore this would mean you're essentially ignoring all of googles past behavior as a large company.

Here's the thing: Google doesn't make you pay money to upload content. You only need to pay Google / YouTube money when you want to monetize your own content, just as you would have to pay Bethesda X percentage if you wanted to sell your mods on Bethesda.net. Simply because you can imagine a situation occurring doesn't make it more likely to happen.

 

Secondly Beth.net doesnt cut anyone out of the equation at all. There are loads of ways other companies such as valve could enter the market. Creating their own mod distribution platform for example.

Simple: Bethesda makes a requirement in their EULA for the Creation Kit that states that they are the only "publisher" where you can sell your mods, because they own the IP of the game you are modding for and thus deserve a percentage. Any other "mod distributor" or mod author that tried to sell mods would be in violation of Bethesda's EULA and would get sued. It's exactly why no one sells their mods now - because Bethesda wouldn't get any money from that sale and they specifically disallow it in their EULAs.

 

And before you say "they can't do that in an EULA", simply substitute "signed and dated legal contract" for permission to use the Creation Kit.

 

Thirdly, there is a huge difference between exchanging information and assets that are already free and giving away assets or information someone intends to use in order to gain revenue. If you honestly think a mod author would give away assets he is using to make money to someone else to make money with I disagree. Doing so would literally undercut his own bottom line which most people simply wont do.

I could point to hundreds of real-world examples where a company - whose sole purpose is to make money - releases their previously paid content as open source. Volition released the source code for Freespace 2 in 2002 under a noncommercial license. id Software has been releasing their game engines as open source a few years after releasing games. There is literally a whole cottage industry of content creators who make stuff and give it away for free and don't care if you use it for your own commercial or noncommercial projects.

 

As for the mod publishers thing you only to look at how youtube works, or how twitch works, or how E-sports works, or how game development works, or how literally any other aspect of the gaming industry that makes significant sums of money works to know that publishers will start to pop up. The moment people started making large amounts of money on youtube Machinima turned itself into a publisher for channels and thats just one example. I dont know how you can possibly envision any part of content creation in the video games industry without publishers honestly.

Ever heard of indie video game developers? Many of them publish their own games themselves. And there's a whole bunch of application developers who sell their work, without a publisher, on Google and Apple software markets. Oh, and let's not forget the authors who self-publish their novels on Amazon.

 

Again I would not cut valve or other companies out of the market just because of bethesda.net. If they think they can make enough money a large company like valve will find some way to enter the market. Thats just a fact in general. Even if valve and all other companies are somehow locked out of the market (unlikely) this isnt a counterpoint to my main point which is that mod authors should seriously consider what they are getting in a paid modding deal and that adding money into the equation would drastically change the community and the way it has worked for 14 years now. Its just unavoidable.

I disagree with your "facts". Finally, how about you let us mod authors make our own decisions on what agreements we enter into.

 

You're just kind of proving my point. If bethesda modifies their eula to only allow paid modding only on their website then this would most likely drive most authors away from sites like nexus and towards the only place they can make money from their work. Thus this would drastically change the community. You could argue that this would be better or produce better work from mod authors which is totally fine but you cannot argue that this wont drastically change the landscape of the community and the modding "scene" for lack of a better word.

 

You can disagree with facts but that doesnt change them. There will always be people willing to say "ill promote you for money" which in essence means there will always be publishers. The introduction of profits into this community will drastically change it, you really cant reasonably argue that it wont. Whether or not that change would be for the better is certainly something that can be discussed.

 

Finally, sure you can decide how you want to monetize your work however you want im in no way saying you can't. However my advice in this regard is this: if you're trying to start a business venture (paid modding for example) its generally a good idea to listen to and consult the future customer lmao. If you just ignore the concerns and preferences of your future customers chances are high your business venture will completely fail. I think my point is proven by the results of the first paid modding attempt. Valve, bethesda, and the included mod authors completely ignored the people the were freaking intending to sell their product to and as a result the venture was completely disliked and completely failed, the users perspective wasn't really accounted for as such the users (customers) hated it lol, is anyone at all really surprised. This idea that only mod authors should be able to talk about paid modding is really silly and even destructive to the dea of paid mods themselves. The mod user is the person you are literally trying to turn into your customer. Its probably a good idea to get their perspective on the matter.

 

That said im not saying that i oppose mod authors making money unlike some others. Im merely saying we as a community should be careful about introducing revenues into the mix and that perhaps charging for mods isnt the answer. Look at youtube or twitch for example, these people turn this into their careers and none of them charge for access to videos or streams.

[Reneer]

You're just kind of proving my point. If bethesda modifies their eula to only allow paid modding only on their website then this would most likely drive most authors away from sites like nexus and towards the only place they can make money from their work. Thus this would drastically change the community. You could argue that this would be better or produce better work from mod authors which is totally fine but you cannot argue that this wont drastically change the landscape of the community and the modding "scene" for lack of a better word.

You're making one major assumption: That all mod authors would want to sell their work. Not all mod authors want the same things. Some of us want paid mods. Some of us don't. Those that don't want paid mods would have absolutely no incentive to move to Bethesda.net as a future paid mod platform because they would literally gain nothing of value for doing so.

 

Would it change the "community"? Yes. I've never said that it wouldn't. Change can be a good thing. That and I don't hold so strongly to the concept of "community" that others do here.

 

You can disagree with facts but that doesnt change them. There will always be people willing to say "ill promote you for money" which in essence means there will always be publishers. The introduction of profits into this community will drastically change it, you really cant reasonably argue that it wont. Whether or not that change would be for the better is certainly something that can be discussed.

Yes, there will always be publishers. I wasn't arguing that fact (I was being hyperbolic). I was arguing against this supposed "fact" of yours:

If they think they can make enough money a large company like valve will find some way to enter the market. Thats just a fact in general.

By tossing around this "fact" you make it rather clear you don't have a strong understanding of how companies work or operate.

 

As for publishers and their usefulness, and this is an important distinction, people are much more capable of self-publishing and promoting their work on their own than they were even 10 years ago. Modders have literally been self-promoting their work (some much better than others) for the past 14-15 years. Sites like the Nexus have only dabbled in promoting mods (Hot Files system) and have never taken money in exchange for promoting a particular mod author.

 

Finally, sure you can decide how you want to monetize your work however you want im in no way saying you can't. However my advice in this regard is this: if you're trying to start a business venture (paid modding for example) its generally a good idea to listen to and consult the future customer lmao. If you just ignore the concerns and preferences of your future customers chances are high your business venture will completely fail. I think my point is proven by the results of the first paid modding attempt. Valve, bethesda, and the included mod authors completely ignored the people the were freaking intending to sell their product to and as a result the venture was completely disliked and completely failed, the users perspective wasn't really accounted for as such the users (customers) hated it lol, is anyone at all really surprised. This idea that only mod authors should be able to talk about paid modding is really silly and even destructive to the dea of paid mods themselves. The mod user is the person you are literally trying to turn into your customer. Its probably a good idea to get their perspective on the matter.

 

That said im not saying that i oppose mod authors making money unlike some others. Im merely saying we as a community should be careful about introducing revenues into the mix and that perhaps charging for mods isnt the answer. Look at youtube or twitch for example, these people turn this into their careers and none of them charge for access to videos or streams.

The vocal majority of mod users who argued against paid mods did so out of a sense of entitlement. The vocal majority who were against paid mods felt they deserved to have mods for free. They whined that they wouldn't be able to afford all of those shiny mods if they cost money. If those people are the "future customers" you are telling me I need to concern myself with, let me make it clear: I don't care about the opinions of people who aren't going to participate in the paid mods system. Those people, most likely, would simply pirate my paid mods and think nothing of it. Thus, I don't care what they think on the matter.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Reneer

[Alexotero1219]

 

You're just kind of proving my point. If bethesda modifies their eula to only allow paid modding only on their website then this would most likely drive most authors away from sites like nexus and towards the only place they can make money from their work. Thus this would drastically change the community. You could argue that this would be better or produce better work from mod authors which is totally fine but you cannot argue that this wont drastically change the landscape of the community and the modding "scene" for lack of a better word.

You're making one major assumption: That all mod authors would want to sell their work. Not all mod authors want the same things. Some of us want paid mods. Some of us don't. Those that don't want paid mods would have absolutely no incentive to move to Bethesda.net as a future paid mod platform because they would literally gain nothing of value for doing so.

 

Would it change the "community"? Yes. I've never said that it wouldn't. Change can be a good thing. That and I don't hold so strongly to the concept of "community" that others do here.

 

You can disagree with facts but that doesnt change them. There will always be people willing to say "ill promote you for money" which in essence means there will always be publishers. The introduction of profits into this community will drastically change it, you really cant reasonably argue that it wont. Whether or not that change would be for the better is certainly something that can be discussed.

Yes, there will always be publishers. I wasn't arguing that fact (I was being hyperbolic). I was arguing against this supposed "fact" of yours:

If they think they can make enough money a large company like valve will find some way to enter the market. Thats just a fact in general.

By tossing around this "fact" you make it rather clear you don't have a strong understanding of how companies work or operate.

 

As for publishers and their usefulness, and this is an important distinction, people are much more capable of self-publishing and promoting their work on their own than they were even 10 years ago. Modders have literally been self-promoting their work (some much better than others) for the past 14-15 years. Sites like the Nexus have only dabbled in promoting mods (Hot Files system) and have never taken money in exchange for promoting a particular mod author.

 

Finally, sure you can decide how you want to monetize your work however you want im in no way saying you can't. However my advice in this regard is this: if you're trying to start a business venture (paid modding for example) its generally a good idea to listen to and consult the future customer lmao. If you just ignore the concerns and preferences of your future customers chances are high your business venture will completely fail. I think my point is proven by the results of the first paid modding attempt. Valve, bethesda, and the included mod authors completely ignored the people the were freaking intending to sell their product to and as a result the venture was completely disliked and completely failed, the users perspective wasn't really accounted for as such the users (customers) hated it lol, is anyone at all really surprised. This idea that only mod authors should be able to talk about paid modding is really silly and even destructive to the dea of paid mods themselves. The mod user is the person you are literally trying to turn into your customer. Its probably a good idea to get their perspective on the matter.

 

That said im not saying that i oppose mod authors making money unlike some others. Im merely saying we as a community should be careful about introducing revenues into the mix and that perhaps charging for mods isnt the answer. Look at youtube or twitch for example, these people turn this into their careers and none of them charge for access to videos or streams.

The vocal majority of mod users who argued against paid mods did so out of a sense of entitlement. The vocal majority who were against paid mods felt they deserved to have mods for free. They whined that they wouldn't be able to afford all of those shiny mods if they cost money. If those people are the "future customers" you are telling me I need to concern myself with, let me make it clear: I don't care about the opinions of people who aren't going to participate in the paid mods system. Those people, most likely, would simply pirate my paid mods and think nothing of it. Thus, I don't care what they think on the matter.

 

Your first statement is totally fair and honestly im not going to argue with it. There is really no way to know if, or how many, mod authors would choose to keep their products free until a paid modding system is released in some form. Maybe im leaning too much on rational actor theory but my assumption is that most authors will inevitably choose to monetize their work. however you're right that there are a variety of opinions on the topic and we just can't know for sure until some form of mod monetization comes into play.

 

At least now I feel like we are on the same page. I had interpreted your previous arguments as presenting a case for why the community wouldn't change and that it would be the same except bethesda and mod authors make money now which i found to be an absolutely absurd assertion lol. But you arent arguing that the community would be the same you're arguing that the change would be for the better correct?

 

So the market entry fact i was throwing around is based on my experience and we can agree to disagree but I honestly think that when enough money comes into play other companies will find a way into that market. I dont think i could find one example where a market has remained entirely airtight from outside competitors but maybe you can, i dont know.

 

What you said about self-publishing and publishers is 100% true and its why publishers are becoming more and more predatory. Just look at the business practices of publishers from machinima to EA and you'll see what im talking about. This is exactly why im urging mod authors to be wary about the monetization of their work. When your work is monetized predatory organizations will try to take advantage of you. This is not a case against paid modding but more words of warning. Also please dont count bethesda as a non-predatory company because they have proven they 100% are.

 

Lastly about the whole paid modding thing, I think we have completely different experiences regarding this issue. You saw entitled mod users and I saw frustrated consumers who had an entire system sprung on them essentially overnight and facing predatory prices ($3 for bugfixes? are you kidding me lol). I dont think it was entitlement, at least not what i saw, it was a consumer base reacting to a system that didnt include them in any other fashion but as a cash cow saying "scrap this BS im not paying for any of it". Sure some people were entitled but honestly i saw waaaay more mod authors righting off legitimate concerns as "entitled mod users" than i saw actual entitled mod users tbh.

 

There are loads of other ways mods could be monetized without a direct price point. A direct price point is just going to make most users view mods as indistinguishable from DLC which is I guess fine for modders that make easy to make cookie cutter content thats in demand but not so good for anyone else.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Alexotero1219

[Reneer]

Your first statement is totally fair and honestly im not going to argue with it. There is really no way to know if, or how many, mod authors would choose to keep their products free until a paid modding system is released in some form. Maybe im leaning too much on rational actor theory but my assumption is that most authors will inevitably choose to monetize their work. however you're right that there are a variety of opinions on the topic and we just can't know for sure until some form of mod monetization comes into play.

 

At least now I feel like we are on the same page. I had interpreted your previous arguments as presenting a case for why the community wouldn't change and that it would be the same except bethesda and mod authors make money now which i found to be an absolutely absurd assertion lol. But you arent arguing that the community would be the same you're arguing that the change would be for the better correct?

I'm arguing that it would be different, not necessarily better. However, there is certainly a good argument to be made that (some) mods would improve in quality because mod authors could assume that they would make some money from the sale of their work and thus be able to put money directly into mod development by hiring voice actors, etc.

So the market entry fact i was throwing around is based on my experience and we can agree to disagree but I honestly think that when enough money comes into play other companies will find a way into that market. I dont think i could find one example where a market has remained entirely airtight from outside competitors but maybe you can, i dont know.

Here's the thing: there is no market. Or, rather, Bethesda controls every last bit of the market. They literally have a monopoly and absolute authority on who can create mods for their game via the CK and who can sell those mods via Bethesda.net, because they own the game and the tools. The only way to get mods on consoles is through them.

What you said about self-publishing and publishers is 100% true and its why publishers are becoming more and more predatory. Just look at the business practices of publishers from machinima to EA and you'll see what im talking about. This is exactly why im urging mod authors to be wary about the monetization of their work. When your work is monetized predatory organizations will try to take advantage of you. This is not a case against paid modding but more words of warning. Also please dont count bethesda as a non-predatory company because they have proven they 100% are.

I never said they weren't. My point is that we mod authors aren't stupid and we are quite capable of making our own judgments on whether a particular deal or monetization scheme is in our best interests.

Lastly about the whole paid modding thing, I think we have completely different experiences regarding this issue. You saw entitled mod users and I saw frustrated consumers who had an entire system sprung on them essentially overnight and facing predatory prices ($3 for bugfixes? are you kidding me lol). I dont think it was entitlement, at least not what i saw, it was a consumer base reacting to a system that didnt include them in any other fashion but as a cash cow saying "scrap this BS im not paying for any of it". Sure some people were entitled but honestly i saw waaaay more mod authors righting off legitimate concerns as "entitled mod users" than i saw actual entitled mod users tbh.

Were people being forced to buy mods? No? They were railing against the simple principle of giving mod authors the ability to sell their work. I don't care if you want to gussy it up by trying to "defend" mod authors and say that we weren't "getting enough percentage" or some other claptrap. We can do the math, thank you very much, and we are perfectly capable of deciding if we want in on a deal. And all the mod users can decide not to buy any of the paid mods. It's really that simple. But instead people whined and complained and crashed Valve's e-mail servers as a form of "protest" seemingly unable to remember that they had happily spent $80-100 on Skyrim and the DLCs.

There are loads of other ways mods could be monetized without a direct price point. A direct price point is just going to make most users view mods as indistinguishable from DLC which is I guess fine for modders that make easy to make cookie cutter content thats in demand but not so good for anyone else.

Really? Monetized without a direct price point how, exactly? Donations? Those don't work - they never really have. Pay what you want? Fine, but mod authors get to set the minimum. Some other method? I'm all ears. Edited July 10, 2016 by Reneer

[Alexotero1219]

 

 

I'm arguing that it would be different, not necessarily better. However, there is certainly a good argument to be made that (some) mods would improve in quality because mod authors could assume that they would make some money from the sale of their work and thus be able to put money directly into mod development by hiring voice actors, etc.

 

I think we agree on this general concept we just disagree on the form monetization should take.

 

 

 

Here's the thing: there is no market. Or, rather, Bethesda controls every last bit of the market. They literally have a monopoly and absolute authority on who can create mods for their game via the CK and who can sell those mods via Bethesda.net, because they own the game and the tools. The only way to get mods on consoles is through them.

 

Well technically there is a market its just not a monetized one but thats not the point. Bethesda doesnt even have a monopoly right now, at least not in terms of distribution. If bethesda tried to monopolize the market after it was monetized there would certainly be external pressures to break in, even lawsuits possibly (monopolies are actually 100% illegal in the US and most western countries). Owning the game and tools aside they cannot operate a monopoly. If private enterprises cannot break into it they will petition public organizations to open it, with enough motivation that is.

 

 

 

I never said they weren't. My point is that we mod authors aren't stupid and we are quite capable of making our own judgments on whether a particular deal or monetization scheme is in our best interests.

 

Im not trying to make digs at people but the first paid modding attempt showed otherwise imo. Mod authors were literally getting robbed in that deal tbqh. It seemed like most of the participating authors were just jumping at the chance of monetization without thinking too deeply about it and with way to much trust placed in bethesda and valve of all companies lmao. This is kinda why im trying to warn about this sort of thing.

 

 

 

Were people being forced to buy mods? No? They were railing against the simple principle of giving mod authors the ability to sell their work. I don't care if you want to gussy it up by trying to "defend" mod authors and say that we weren't "getting enough percentage" or some other claptrap. We can do the math, thank you very much, and we are perfectly capable of deciding if we want in on a deal. And all the mod users can decide not to buy any of the paid mods. It's really that simple. But instead people whined and complained and crashed Valve's e-mail servers as a form of "protest" seemingly unable to remember that they had happily spent $80-100 on Skyrim and the DLCs

 

No they weren't forced to buy paid mods and they werent buying them which was precisely why the system failed. People were expressing outrage at all aspects of the system and this outrage could have easily been avoided if consumers were included in the decision and their perspectives taken into account. Im not trying to "gussy" this up in any way im saying I was dissatisfied with the system that turned a previously free enterprise into a monetized one overnight without so much as a warning to consumers. Im in no way speaking about this in an attempt to help mod authors lol im speaking as a consumer that was completely dissatisfied with the system and the predatory practices of the groups involved. The prices were ridiculous, the secrecy around the whole thing was ridiculous, and the blatant holding back of updates so they could be put behind a paywall was pretty nuts. People didnt forget that they paid 80-$100 for skyrim they remembered it acutely, at least I did. That was part of the problem, beth charges full price for a broken game then lets mod authors charge for the fixes and continues to charge for any content expansions. The whole system was a blatant attempt to nickle and dime the consumer and only to benefit bethesda and valve while throwing the mod authors a tiny bone. If you need any more proof just ask yourself why they were being so secretive about it to begin with. They knew what they were doing and were hoping to ambush consumers with it. Thats really that in my opinion.

 

 

 

Really? Monetized without a direct price point how, exactly? Donations? Those don't work - they never really have. Pay what you want? Fine, but mod authors get to set the minimum. Some other method? I'm all ears.

 

You can think of anything really. Donations are of course the first thing that comes to mind but as you said they dont really work. However I cant help but wonder if thats because the user isnt willing to donate or because the number of people using mods is low so the frequency of donations are low. Possibly its because what seems like, at least to me, the nexus' aversion to marketing donations maybe? Ive heard of mod authors being warned for mentioning users can donate or asking for donations which seems odd.

 

Contests like nvidias also dont seem like that bad of an idea if they are properly managed and dont restrict uploads to one site for whatever reason.

 

Maybe allow mod authors to monetize their individual mod pages with ad revenue? So each mod generates its own revenue stream depending on page views or downloads? Certainly a possibility but of course this means sites like nexus would need to be funded by another method possibly small subscription fees for forum use? Heck this might keep the idiots from posting and even temper the posting itself lol A ban just cost you 10 usd or something lol.

 

Maybe all of the above? who knows.

 

My point is a guess that monetization can come in many forms not just a direct price point.

[lelcat]

 

What you said about self-publishing and publishers is 100% true and its why publishers are becoming more and more predatory. Just look at the business practices of publishers from machinima to EA and you'll see what im talking about. This is exactly why im urging mod authors to be wary about the monetization of their work. When your work is monetized predatory organizations will try to take advantage of you. This is not a case against paid modding but more words of warning. Also please dont count bethesda as a non-predatory company because they have proven they 100% are.

Would you stop exaggerating for a second? EA is not predatory. They sell stuff that you can buy if you want. Just because you follow that internet opinion cloud that EA is an evil cult does not mean it is true. You are being a predator too, working in your day job, doing it for the money and not for the "love" of it.