When Beth wins, and mods cost money...

[AsmodesReynolds]

 

[..] 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.

 

 

Lelcat,

As I also own Sims 4, could you explain to me why, those improvements couldn’t come in addition to two all the existing features from the previous game?

There are evidence in game engine/files that they were cut to sell to you later (pools being locked, at launch, is a good example) Toddlers are referenced but not used. Maybe these features were not completed by the release date. So why haven’t they come in free patches?

 

What about the rest of the missing features that were in the previous game? I will bet, by the time that they release a Sims 5 all the features that were in the previous instalments, will be there, each one of them costing you money, just like they were by the end of Sims 3’s lifespan. Because that EA’s business model.

 

Do you have any argument, besides EA wanting to milk us for money, that would justify them not being there, or being included in free updates?

 

Money is a great incentive, but who & what it is incentivizing is important. Yes, selling mods might incentivize authors to create awesome mods. However, it is also incentivizing the game company, to cut corners, knowing that the mod community, that they now make money off of will fix it/improve on it, so that the company can save money on development….

[PoliteRaider]

 

No, Im in no way disregarding the amount of work it takes to do these things. I dont even know how you came to that conclusion tbh.

 

Sorry, it seemed like what you were saying. Now that you've explained I understand what you originally meant, but that wasn't what I got from my reading of your first post.

 

I get being unhappy with Bethesda, or any other gaming company, for having day-zero DLC or other DLC that's made out of content stripped from the original. However at the end of the day, I think that just comes down to your choice whether or not to buy the original. Look at reviews of the game, see what it's got in it and if you want that, buy it. So long as they don't have a deceptive marketing campaign, it's really up to you to make that judgement. Then you can independently decide whether you want to buy the DLC as well or not.

 

Now personally I don't agree that the DLC was deliberately stripped from the vanilla. I can't guarantee it because I'm not psychic or anything, but when I read through the game files, scripts, AI packages, etc all written by Bethesda I keep seeing signs of a development team wanting to do a ton of extra stuff with the game and running out of time, funding, resources, etc. The program files don't read like content was cut out of it, it reads like unfinished content was hastily patched over with workarounds to skip the bits that weren't done. That's just my best guess from looking at how things were done so it could easily be wrong.

 

Either way though, I don't get where that comes in to paid modding. If you don't like Fallout 4, then don't buy it. If you want to buy Fallout 4 only because of the mods that are created for it, then you're still buying it for a legitimate aspect of the game, the fact that it's moddable. Bethesda does put time and effort into releasing the Creation Kit, making tutorials for it, etc. Which does cost them money and makes it part of the game in a way.

 

Sure I can understand being a little annoyed if you bought the game expecting free mods for it and discover that they're doing paid mods instead. That way it's changing your original value assessment for the game. However that just means that a lot of free labour was being taken for granted, which isn't really fair either. But yeah, it's hard to adjust to change and I can certainly understand feeling deceived by Bethesda if they suddenly do an about-face on their well-established position.

 

At the end of the day though it's still a simple honest question. Does the value of Fallout 4 + Whichever DLCs you want to buy + Whichever paid mods you want to buy (if such a thing exists) + Whatever free resources you choose to download = the combined cost of all the above. If yes, then you should buy it. If no then you shouldn't. If you're not sure, you can always wait and check once these things become available and reviewers have given their opinion. That way you might even take advantage of a steam sale or something similar.

 

And yes, I agree that companies heavily incentivizing pre-orders can be a predatory way around allowing customers to make these value judgements and I completely endorse someone choosing to hold off buying games so as not to encourage these behaviours, but I really don't see the link to paid modding there.

[Alexotero1219]

 

Sorry, it seemed like what you were saying. Now that you've explained I understand what you originally meant, but that wasn't what I got from my reading of your first post.

Im glad that was cleared up easily. These sorts of misconceptions were a huge part of the problem during the first paid modding attempt imo. Users would make some kind of critique or be justifiably angry that the whole thing was kept secret from them and mod authors would jump to the conclusion that users were being entitled or disregarding their work. And of course vice versa. I dont want any author to think im placing little value on the work they do. I wouldn't be here if i did lol. Im just expressing the "consumers" perspective and how I think most users will see things if mods are directly charged for.

 

 

 

I get being unhappy with Bethesda, or any other gaming company, for having day-zero DLC or other DLC that's made out of content stripped from the original. However at the end of the day, I think that just comes down to your choice whether or not to buy the original. Look at reviews of the game, see what it's got in it and if you want that, buy it. So long as they don't have a deceptive marketing campaign, it's really up to you to make that judgement. Then you can independently decide whether you want to buy the DLC as well or not.

This is fair but you also have to remember that, at least i believe, users feel the same way about mods that authors do for the most part. This is a hobby that they have enjoyed for a while and feel passionate about. Maybe they get a sense of community from this site or maybe they just enjoy the new content authors add and love playing a game they can sink over 100 hours in for once. This isnt a new product to research and decide if you want to buy. Its a hobby some have been enjoying for what 14 years?

 

So of course when a new business decision comes along that might drastically change it for the worse I feel the need to speak my mind on it or caution against it. Im not sure if im explaining this well but I personally feel that this issue of paid modding is at least somewhat different from simply a new entry in the series.

 

 

 

Now personally I don't agree that the DLC was deliberately stripped from the vanilla. I can't guarantee it because I'm not psychic or anything, but when I read through the game files, scripts, AI packages, etc all written by Bethesda I keep seeing signs of a development team wanting to do a ton of extra stuff with the game and running out of time, funding, resources, etc. The program files don't read like content was cut out of it, it reads like unfinished content was hastily patched over with workarounds to skip the bits that weren't done. That's just my best guess from looking at how things were done so it could easily be wrong.

You would have more knowledge on this than me to be honest so ill certainly take your word for it. So assuming they didn't cut it we still run into the issue where mods essentially become indistinguishable from DLC. What makes you think users would be more likely to purchase them in this event?

 

Drawing on my own personal expertise (economics) I can tell you with certainty that the quantity of some thing that is demanded (purchased) by a consumer base is directly related to the price in that it decreases as price increases. Moreover this is relative to the increase itself. That is to say that something will see a greater drop in sales if its price is increased from $1 to $10 than if its increased from $1000 to $1001.

 

I think you might get what im trying to say but if mods went from free to paid their price increase graph would actually be like asymptotic lmao. So my concern is that consumers will reject this for the most part and this concern is, somewhat, vindicated by the first paid modding attempt and its why im encouraging a search for alternative revenue streams. In fact I cant think of a successful business venture which has started off by charging for something that was previously free. If you can I would be interested in seeing it.

 

 

 

Either way though, I don't get where that comes in to paid modding. If you don't like Fallout 4, then don't buy it. If you want to buy Fallout 4 only because of the mods that are created for it, then you're still buying it for a legitimate aspect of the game, the fact that it's moddable. Bethesda does put time and effort into releasing the Creation Kit, making tutorials for it, etc. Which does cost them money and makes it part of the game in a way.

So for the first part I think I explained above. That taking mods and charging for them might be viewed differently by users than simply making a new entry in the fallout series. Im not sure if I explained it well lmao.

 

As for the last parts It would be incredibly deceptive especially if beth marketed free mods to the users and then started charging for them. Actually im not even sure if it would be legal. They might need to heavily market paid mods before releasing a game which employs the concept which then simply brings me back to my concerns above. Paid mods are a price increase for the base game as well, at least consumers will see them as such, so this would mean lower sales for the base game and lower "sales" for mods then we currently see. What will this do to the fallout/TES series and modding in the long run? I dont know but it certainly something to consider.

[lelcat]

 

 

[..] 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.

 

 

Lelcat,

As I also own Sims 4, could you explain to me why, those improvements couldn’t come in addition to two all the existing features from the previous game?

There are evidence in game engine/files that they were cut to sell to you later (pools being locked, at launch, is a good example) Toddlers are referenced but not used. Maybe these features were not completed by the release date. So why haven’t they come in free patches?

 

What about the rest of the missing features that were in the previous game? I will bet, by the time that they release a Sims 5 all the features that were in the previous instalments, will be there, each one of them costing you money, just like they were by the end of Sims 3’s lifespan. Because that EA’s business model.

 

Do you have any argument, besides EA wanting to milk us for money, that would justify them not being there, or being included in free updates?

 

Money is a great incentive, but who & what it is incentivizing is important. Yes, selling mods might incentivize authors to create awesome mods. However, it is also incentivizing the game company, to cut corners, knowing that the mod community, that they now make money off of will fix it/improve on it, so that the company can save money on development….

 

And? It is the company's own decision to decide how much content is put into the base game and how much goes into the DLC. You need to let go of that idea that stuff only is allowed to cost the minimum possible. People who work on games like money like everyone else. And Sims DLCS are usually reasonably priced for what you get. All companies want to make money, just like you want to make money. And they are going to price their games and DLC in a range where they can maximize the profit while keeping the price at a level where they can sell as many units as possible.

 

"You" are "milking" your employer for money too in your day job. Why don't you work for half the pay and live like a homeless person, it would make your boss happier. And using words like "milking" to stir angry emotion to enforce your point will usually blow up in your face, because people will start ignoring your arguments. EA is not a demon attaching you to a milking machine. They offer things you can buy, if you want to, at a free floating market price.

Edited July 12, 2016 by lelcat

[steve40]

 

In fact I cant think of a successful business venture which has started off by charging for something that was previously free. If you can I would be interested in seeing it.

 

 

The sex industry :tongue:

 

or,

 

Paid mods for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

 

 

 

We are Orbx. Our company was founded by CEO John Venema in 2006 with a clear and ambitious vision to create the best flight simulation scenery possible. Today with over 50 developers on dozens of active projects, Orbx has released over one hundred award-winning payware and freeware FTX products including a worldwide texture and vector replacement. With support for P3D and the addition of the new "Flow" technologies that add even more realism, we continue to push the boundaries of what is possible.

Orbx Company History

In 2005, John Venema began working on a personal Australian terrain project for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, a PC-based entertainment simulator often used for real pilot training. Encouraged by an overwhelming response to previews on a small blog site, the project soon became known as Vista Australia, or VOZ. By the end of that year, VOZ 0.99 made its debut and the series went on to become the most popular download for FS2004 with a thriving user community and a gathering of very talented designers and developers.

With the advent of Microsoft's Flight Simulator X (FSX) and recently Lockheed Martin's Prepar3D (P3D) build on the FSX codebase, John saw the potential in these new engines to redefine the boundaries of high resolution terrain scenery and airports - and Orbx was born. In 2006, Orbx was formally incorporated as a company and work began on a new FSX project which ultimately became known as FTX, with AU BLUE launching in March 2008. Since then Orbx has released regions covering Australia, New Zealand and parts of North America.

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by steve40

[PoliteRaider]

 

In fact I cant think of a successful business venture which has started off by charging for something that was previously free. If you can I would be interested in seeing it.

 

Bottled water.

[Alexotero1219]

 

 

In fact I cant think of a successful business venture which has started off by charging for something that was previously free. If you can I would be interested in seeing it.

 

 

The sex industry :tongue:

 

 

Technically couldn't this be argued either way? lmao. Although funny its a bit hard to accept lol.

 

 

 

 

In fact I cant think of a successful business venture which has started off by charging for something that was previously free. If you can I would be interested in seeing it.

 

Bottled water.

 

 

eh. I wouldn't consider bottled water as having been previously free, sure water was but the bottled and purified kind I wouldn't necessarily say so.

[steve40]

 

 

In fact I cant think of a successful business venture which has started off by charging for something that was previously free. If you can I would be interested in seeing it.

 

Bottled water.

 

 

Perri-air :)

 

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Zj1YgvWt--/17zdydkft9xpcjpg.jpg

[PoliteRaider]

 

eh. I wouldn't consider bottled water as having been previously free, sure water was but the bottled and purified kind I wouldn't necessarily say so.

 

So if a mod is packaged and provided through a distribution system, it could be considered a new product that can be charged for?

 

(Also the vast majority of bottled water isn't purified in any way, shape or form other than by the municipal water system. People believing that it has been or has an extraordinary origin is a big success of the marketing industry.)

Edited July 12, 2016 by PoliteRaider

[steve40]

Plastic supermarket shopping bags.