When Beth wins, and mods cost money...

[cossayos]

 

The last 10 EA games I bought were awesome. And are you sure Origin forces you to repurchase games every 2 years? Because I do not see that.

You wouldn't, because the backlash against the original clause that appeared when Origin first became a thing was removed. It's no longer there. So there hasn't been this 2 year limit thing for a very long time now.

 

Being the internet, nobody ever bothered to correct their tumblr screeds and blog posts when EA changed it :tongue:

 

 

 

Wouldn't be as juicy now, would it? But point stands. They try every trick in the book to change a dime on the backs of their customers. That's why I always read what's in the TOS before buying anything from Origin. And there are a few Bioware games I own.

[mwhenry16]

Regardless of what Beth does modding wise, Nexus "style" mod distribution will continue until (doubtful) they find a way to shut it off. Until that point, many of us will continue down track B (Nexus style), which will evolve, just as Beth's system will evolve. They will of course charge in the near future, it's only a question of the format.

 

Honestly, I have no idea what I would be willing to put up with as far as a pay format. I love the little mods that make computer screens scroll faster, but obviously it's in a whole different complexity level than CBBE, besides being apples and oranges. Both have value to me, but I'm not paying the same.

 

And at some point I might have 150 mods. Right now I have only 30. But even $1-$2 per mod adds up. We shall see what will be, soon.

[lelcat]

 

 

The last 10 EA games I bought were awesome. And are you sure Origin forces you to repurchase games every 2 years? Because I do not see that.

You wouldn't, because the backlash against the original clause that appeared when Origin first became a thing was removed. It's no longer there. So there hasn't been this 2 year limit thing for a very long time now.

 

Being the internet, nobody ever bothered to correct their tumblr screeds and blog posts when EA changed it :tongue:

 

 

 

Wouldn't be as juicy now, would it? But point stands. They try every trick in the book to change a dime on the backs of their customers. That's why I always read what's in the TOS before buying anything from Origin. And there are a few Bioware games I own.

 

No, they won't try every trick in the book. You have this paranoid hallucination that EA is on this world to screw people over with ways that are so obvious even a paranoid EA forum hater can figure the plan out.

 

Do you really think they are that stupid, and hostile towards customers? If you think they are this hostile then there is something wrong emotionally with you because you assume the worst and then go beyond any reasonable scenario.

[cossayos]

 

 

Do you really think they are that stupid, and hostile towards customers? If you think they are this hostile then there is something wrong emotionally with you because you assume the worst and then go beyond any reasonable scenario.

 

 

No, they're just a business. And having my fair share of dealings with insurance companies where some serious lawyering up was needed to make them stick to their contracts, such as actually paying for the burned down house instead of indicting my mother, I rather be on the safe side. They're certainly not idealists being there for the enjoyment of their customers, but for the wellbeing of their share holders.

 

Game publishers aren't any better or worse because they're dealing in entertainment. EA is the Monsanto of game companies. Trying to be the sharpest tool in the shed. Nothing wrong with that, obviously, but a blue eyed approach certainly isn't warranted with any big boss in any field.

Edited July 11, 2016 by cossayos

[Alexotero1219]

 

 

Do you really think they are that stupid, and hostile towards customers? If you think they are this hostile then there is something wrong emotionally with you because you assume the worst and then go beyond any reasonable scenario.

 

hate to break it to you but i dont need to think it. They have already tried it.....

 

Thats like saying do you REALLY think that drug dealer would so obviously lace his weed with more addictive drugs? REALLY even an idiot could figure it out it makes no sense.

 

Meanwhile that very dealer has done exactly that same thing and its been proven multiple times that he has.

 

What else do you need? Its not like EA has people sitting around thinking of ways to screw people over but if they see an opportunity they 100% have proven they will take it.

[NorthWolf]

I'd like to ask what EA really has to do with the ongoing discussion at this point...?

[AsmodesReynolds]

Okay, I’ve spent a great deal of time getting myself caught up on this thread, maybe it’s a complete waste of time, but I’m going to put my two cents into this take it or leave it.

Paid Moding Catastrophically Bad Idea,

because of the incentives that it gives to the developers of the game. In this case Bethesda. But this applies to any game developer.

And here’s why: (some of these points have been mentioned before by other people in this thread and in others)

 

I’m going to lay this down as simple as possible, any corporation, that is publicly traded as a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the return for its shareholders. While spending the least on overhead. Therefore, corporations are essentially amoral. The Corporation will maximize profit within the restraints of the incentives and disincentives.

Let’s use Bethesda/zenimax one example, what would paid modelling incentivize, and dis-incentivize? Using profit margin and development cost as the metrics (there are many, many more, but to keep simple I’m going to use the two biggest ones…..)

 

Paid in moding would incentivize Bethesda/zenimax to:

· Developing and maintaining a first party very powerful highly mod-able stable game engine, that is very easy to learn and develop. Let’s say the Idtech engine…… Which Bethesda already done

· Develop and maintain a very powerful dynamic development tools, that are proprietary

· Develop and maintain a very powerful storefront, which not only is easy to use for the end user, but also protects content creators and the company at large. This would require a very high level of DRM in both the game engine, and any DLC downloaded from the store…. Which Bethesda is on the way to doing. (we already do have paid mods people, they’re called DLC….Yours would be no different…)

· Incentivize taking a large portion of proceeds from anything developed in their engine, with their intellectual property, and sold on their store . Let’s say 30%.......( sound familiar to anybody…… )

· Buying up popular franchise, so that their community can make compelling content using their engine and tools for them to make a 30% cut on.

· Incentivizing free to play game design elements to encourage purchases of first party DLC, to diminish or remove frustrating mechanics.

 

Paid in moding would dis-incentivize Bethesda/zenimax to:

· developing anything more than a bare-bones storyline, with very little in character development and side quests (this causes a great deal of money and has very little in financial return, that is why we see so many wasteland workshop style DLC. Why bother someone else will do it for them with no development over head.)

· Cutting out game mechanics in following instalments in order to sell them back to the player base as expansions (see the Sims.)

· developing and designing very few assets such as guns, Armour, npc and workshop mode items (these are very easily, so why bother someone else will do it for them with no development over head.)

· Adding new mechanics in free updates (after you’ve trained your player base to expect to pay for everything, why would you hand them anything for free)

· slowly inflating the price of your official content to make more money and make it stand out from the crowd (see all expenses for Sims)

I submit these three companies/products, as examples/signposts to what’s going to happen…

 

Valve/Steam

Valve crated steam originally, as a DRM/anti-cheat platform for their games, but quickly realizes potential, and is all but stopped the game development in favor of taking a 30% cut of all game sales and micro transactions on their platform. What little games they do develop are usually do incremental improvements on long-running multiplayer franchises that they move to free to play with micro transactions.

 

Sims/EA.

Enough said. If you aren’t familiar with the Sims 2-4 cutting out features such as pools, toddler lifestage, vacation, date night, etc. etc. that were expansions to the original, being removed from the subsequent releases and sold for $20-$40, as expansions… You don’t know female gamers…….

 

YouTube/Google

For this, I think NorthWolf said it the best.

 

 

[….]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. [....]

 

 

All that said, I do think some sort of compensation for mod authors is important, they do deserve it, all official paid moding is not a good idea because of the incentive structure for the company providing the base game.

 

A model where the original games maker did not get to kickbacks would work, but I don’t think that would be legally possible, any amount of kickbacks for mods would trigger the incentives stated above.

Sites like YouTube exists, and make money because they are a content creation platform, not content itself, that’s the main difference.

 

If Bethesda wants to make a game engine and development tools for people to make their own games, and sell them. I would be supportive of that, because then you would be buying inde game x made with their engine and development tools, and possibly their IP (but I highly doubt that they’ll ever licensed their IP). But that would be an entirely different beast than paid moding.

Edited July 11, 2016 by AsmodesReynolds

[lelcat]

 

 

 

Do you really think they are that stupid, and hostile towards customers? If you think they are this hostile then there is something wrong emotionally with you because you assume the worst and then go beyond any reasonable scenario.

 

 

No, they're just a business. And having my fair share of dealings with insurance companies where some serious lawyering up was needed to make them stick to their contracts, such as actually paying for the burned down house instead of indicting my mother, I rather be on the safe side. They're certainly not idealists being there for the enjoyment of their customers, but for the wellbeing of their share holders.

 

Game publishers aren't any better or worse because they're dealing in entertainment. EA is the Monsanto of game companies. Trying to be the sharpest tool in the shed. Nothing wrong with that, obviously, but a blue eyed approach certainly isn't warranted with any big boss in any field.

 

Yes, they are a business that sells entertainment products. And as a frequent EA customer, I always got my money's worth. All the games are top of the line when it comes to the latest graphics technology and they are not cutting corners. In the entertainment business you want your customers to come back, so selling them trash will put a dent in the customer's confidence in your products. And if EA was a demon that eats kittens and sells trash games to people forcing them at gunpoint to buy, then they would be out of business.

 

 

 

 

Do you really think they are that stupid, and hostile towards customers? If you think they are this hostile then there is something wrong emotionally with you because you assume the worst and then go beyond any reasonable scenario.

 

hate to break it to you but i dont need to think it. They have already tried it.....

 

Thats like saying do you REALLY think that drug dealer would so obviously lace his weed with more addictive drugs? REALLY even an idiot could figure it out it makes no sense.

 

Meanwhile that very dealer has done exactly that same thing and its been proven multiple times that he has.

 

What else do you need? Its not like EA has people sitting around thinking of ways to screw people over but if they see an opportunity they 100% have proven they will take it.

 

You are making stuff up. The recent EA games I bought: BF3, BF4, Sim City, Sims4. I do not see the screwing over part. You life in this fantasy where everyone (except you of course) only does things for money. If EA would be selling trash, they would be out of business.

 

Okay, I’ve spent a great deal of time getting myself caught up on this thread, maybe it’s a complete waste of time, but I’m going to put my two cents into this take it or leave it.

Paid Moding Catastrophically Bad Idea,

because of the incentives that it gives to the developers of the game. In this case Bethesda. But this applies to any game developer.

And here’s why: (some of these points have been mentioned before by other people in this thread and in others)

 

I’m going to lay this down as simple as possible, any corporation, that is publicly traded as a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the return for its shareholders. While spending the least on overhead. Therefore, corporations are essentially amoral. The Corporation will maximize profit within the restraints of the incentives and disincentives.

Let’s use Bethesda/zenimax one example, what would paid modelling incentivize, and dis-incentivize? Using profit margin and development cost as the metrics (there are many, many more, but to keep simple I’m going to use the two biggest ones…..)

 

Paid in moding would incentivize Bethesda/zenimax to:

· Developing and maintaining a first party very powerful highly mod-able stable game engine, that is very easy to learn and develop. Let’s say the Idtech engine…… Which Bethesda already done

· Develop and maintain a very powerful dynamic development tools, that are proprietary

· Develop and maintain a very powerful storefront, which not only is easy to use for the end user, but also protects content creators and the company at large. This would require a very high level of DRM in both the game engine, and any DLC downloaded from the store…. Which Bethesda is on the way to doing. (we already do have paid mods people, they’re called DLC….Yours would be no different…)

· Incentivize taking a large portion of proceeds from anything developed in their engine, with their intellectual property, and sold on their store . Let’s say 30%.......( sound familiar to anybody…… )

· Buying up popular franchise, so that their community can make compelling content using their engine and tools for them to make a 30% cut on.

· Incentivizing free to play game design elements to encourage purchases of first party DLC, to diminish or remove frustrating mechanics.

 

Paid in moding would dis-incentivize Bethesda/zenimax to:

· developing anything more than a bare-bones storyline, with very little in character development and side quests (this causes a great deal of money and has very little in financial return, that is why we see so many wasteland workshop style DLC. Why bother someone else will do it for them with no development over head.)

· Cutting out game mechanics in following instalments in order to sell them back to the player base as expansions (see the Sims.)

· developing and designing very few assets such as guns, Armour, npc and workshop mode items (these are very easily, so why bother someone else will do it for them with no development over head.)

· Adding new mechanics in free updates (after you’ve trained your player base to expect to pay for everything, why would you hand them anything for free)

· slowly inflating the price of your official content to make more money and make it stand out from the crowd (see all expenses for Sims)

I submit these three companies/products, as examples/signposts to what’s going to happen…

 

Valve/Steam

Valve crated steam originally, as a DRM/anti-cheat platform for their games, but quickly realizes potential, and is all but stopped the game development in favor of taking a 30% cut of all game sales and micro transactions on their platform. What little games they do develop are usually do incremental improvements on long-running multiplayer franchises that they move to free to play with micro transactions.

 

Sims/EA.

Enough said. If you aren’t familiar with the Sims 2-4 cutting out features such as pools, toddler lifestage, vacation, date night, etc. etc. that were expansions to the original, being removed from the subsequent releases and sold for $20-$40, as expansions… You don’t know female gamers…….

 

YouTube/Google

For this, I think NorthWolf said it the best.

 

 

[….]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. [....]

 

 

All that said, I do think some sort of compensation for mod authors is important, they do deserve it, all official paid moding is not a good idea because of the incentive structure for the company providing the base game.

 

A model where the original games maker did not get to kickbacks would work, but I don’t think that would be legally possible, any amount of kickbacks for mods would trigger the incentives stated above.

Sites like YouTube exists, and make money because they are a content creation platform, not content itself, that’s the main difference.

 

If Bethesda wants to make a game engine and development tools for people to make their own games, and sell them. I would be supportive of that, because then you would be buying inde game x made with their engine and development tools, and possibly their IP (but I highly doubt that they’ll ever licensed their IP). But that would be an entirely different beast than paid moding.

You are overexaggerating things. Sims4 might have cut some features, but other features are stronger and supremely awesome to make up for it. The interface for building your home is the best in the series yet. Just because the numerical list of features might appear shorter, depending on how you twist the numbers, it does not mean that the existing features dont make up for it.

 

And you are completely wrong about the incentives. Money is the best incentive for quality. That is a reality of life.

[cossayos]

Let's just say there are some businesses that are more trustworthy than EA in my books. They're not the devil, but they're also not my drinking buddies. So if I enter into a contract with them, I'm very cautious what I'm actually signing.

 

None of the game companies are my drinking buddies, but I consider EA to be the least trustworthy. Because of previous attempts to cash in even more. Not illigally, but in a dubious way. They're also not developers. Not anymore. Just a publisher buying up the compatition.

[Stronglav]

Mods will cost money.

 

http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1468274451/e523bb5a/13350307_m.jpg

 

Great idea Beths!!!You are digging your own grave!!!!