"wah, wah- I want money" post on Gamasutra

[Alexotero1219]

 

You're giving up leverage everytime you say "25/75 is reasonable" or try to come up with reasons why beth should be paying you less. At least theoretically you are.

 

Most of these negotiations are won or lost on leverage so you don't want to be just giving that up. You should go into the proverbial negotiations and say "hey I make this crap and without me you dont have a continuous revenue stream so I want 80/20" then adjust from there.

 

Dont sell yourself short and settle for 25/75 WHAT ARE YOU DOING YOU ABSOLUTE MAD MAN.

Let's take a step back for a moment and look at the facts:

 

1. I know exactly what I'm doing and what the consequences of what I say will be. In this case Bethesda / Zenimax will likely never deviate from a rough 25/75 split. I've spent the last 6 years of my life studying how organizations and corporations like Bethesda / Zenimax work. And I've taken several courses in college and graduate school on negotiations and negotiation tactics. Not to mention that Bethesda / Zenimax will never go into negotiations - they will simply set a percentage, announce paid mods again, and that will be that.

 

2. The only way Bethesda / Zenimax would potentially increase the mod author's percentage would be if the mod authors who wanted paid mods formed a lobbying group / union of sorts. That's unlikely to happen.

 

3. Even if mod authors created a lobby or union, Bethesda / Zenimax would never accept an 80/20 split or even a 50/50 split. Yes, I know you're supposed to "anchor" and try to set the price as high as you can get away with, but Bethesda / Zenimax would most likely simply say "no deal" and move on with their wildly successful business.

 

I dont think a tweet would be all that damning to a paid modding system in court in regards to CPA. At least not the tweet alone.

 

That being said it would be, shall we say, rough legally for bethesda to institute any paid modding system in any of their already released games including fallout 4. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the original paid modding scheme was brought down after bethesda or valve was threatened with a lawsuit. Mods have been repeatedly marketed as free alterations to the game. Bethesda is also well aware that their consumers, as of right now, expect them to be free and likely purchased the game on that expectation much more so than other games (people aren't buying the witcher 3 in droves for mods). Bethesda suddenly offering a paid modding option for fallout 4 after planning in secret with mod authors just like the skyrim system would absolutely 100% constitute false and predatory advertising. Even more so with FO4 considering the E3 showcase and the ingame mod browser and all that.

 

In order for bethesda to make paid mods a reality, and do so with legal security, they would need to do it in a completely new game and market the game as one with paid mods before release. But thats a whole different issue.

There is one major problem with your theory: Those advertisements did not lie or mislead. Mods are free on Bethesda.net. Those advertisements never said that mods would always be free or that all mods would be free. Thus there was nothing deceptive or misleading about them in the slightest. A company is allowed to change their products or services as they see fit. Advertising that you can lease a 2016 Ford Focus for $160 a month doesn't get Ford or the dealerships in any trouble when the lease price is changed to $200 a month 6 months after the advertisement was aired.

 

Thats not exactly how this sort of thing works. Common law, for lack of a better term, would essentially view charging for mods in an already released game as a price increase after the fact which is very difficult to not get sued over. Unless of course you have the lobbying power of all major cable and utility companies combined which I dont think beth does.

 

Heck even if a court doesn't see it as a price increase beth would still likely be ordered to offer refunds for a period of time after doing this which would be no bueno. At least provided someone sued over it.

 

Taking your example, yes the leasing company would get in trouble if they did this on a fixed leasing rate or failed to get the customer to sign an agreement which specified the rate could be variable. None of this applies to video games anyway tbh.

[Reneer]

Thats not exactly how this sort of thing works. Common law, for lack of a better term, would essentially view charging for mods in an already released game as a price increase after the fact which is very difficult to not get sued over. Unless of course you have the lobbying power of all major cable and utility companies combined which I dont think beth does.

 

Heck even if a court doesn't see it as a price increase beth would still likely be ordered to offer refunds for a period of time after doing this which would be no bueno. At least provided someone sued over it.

 

Taking your example, yes the leasing company would get in trouble if they did this on a fixed leasing rate or failed to get the customer to sign an agreement which specified the rate could be variable. None of this applies to video games anyway tbh.

Paid mods would not be a "price increase" because no one is being forced to buy them and they are not a requirement to successfully play Fallout 4. Furthermore, companies are allowed to modify prices on products as they see fit. Bethesda could raise the price of Fallout 4 to $200 tomorrow and, while no one would buy it, it would be perfectly legal. I honestly don't know where you are getting the idea that price increases / changes are somehow illegal.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Reneer

[LadyMilla]

They also raised the price of the Season Pass. Prices are not set in stone.

[lelcat]

 

 

You're giving up leverage everytime you say "25/75 is reasonable" or try to come up with reasons why beth should be paying you less. At least theoretically you are.

 

Most of these negotiations are won or lost on leverage so you don't want to be just giving that up. You should go into the proverbial negotiations and say "hey I make this crap and without me you dont have a continuous revenue stream so I want 80/20" then adjust from there.

 

Dont sell yourself short and settle for 25/75 WHAT ARE YOU DOING YOU ABSOLUTE MAD MAN.

Let's take a step back for a moment and look at the facts:

 

1. I know exactly what I'm doing and what the consequences of what I say will be. In this case Bethesda / Zenimax will likely never deviate from a rough 25/75 split. I've spent the last 6 years of my life studying how organizations and corporations like Bethesda / Zenimax work. And I've taken several courses in college and graduate school on negotiations and negotiation tactics. Not to mention that Bethesda / Zenimax will never go into negotiations - they will simply set a percentage, announce paid mods again, and that will be that.

 

2. The only way Bethesda / Zenimax would potentially increase the mod author's percentage would be if the mod authors who wanted paid mods formed a lobbying group / union of sorts. That's unlikely to happen.

 

3. Even if mod authors created a lobby or union, Bethesda / Zenimax would never accept an 80/20 split or even a 50/50 split. Yes, I know you're supposed to "anchor" and try to set the price as high as you can get away with, but Bethesda / Zenimax would most likely simply say "no deal" and move on with their wildly successful business.

 

I dont think a tweet would be all that damning to a paid modding system in court in regards to CPA. At least not the tweet alone.

 

That being said it would be, shall we say, rough legally for bethesda to institute any paid modding system in any of their already released games including fallout 4. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the original paid modding scheme was brought down after bethesda or valve was threatened with a lawsuit. Mods have been repeatedly marketed as free alterations to the game. Bethesda is also well aware that their consumers, as of right now, expect them to be free and likely purchased the game on that expectation much more so than other games (people aren't buying the witcher 3 in droves for mods). Bethesda suddenly offering a paid modding option for fallout 4 after planning in secret with mod authors just like the skyrim system would absolutely 100% constitute false and predatory advertising. Even more so with FO4 considering the E3 showcase and the ingame mod browser and all that.

 

In order for bethesda to make paid mods a reality, and do so with legal security, they would need to do it in a completely new game and market the game as one with paid mods before release. But thats a whole different issue.

There is one major problem with your theory: Those advertisements did not lie or mislead. Mods are free on Bethesda.net. Those advertisements never said that mods would always be free or that all mods would be free. Thus there was nothing deceptive or misleading about them in the slightest. A company is allowed to change their products or services as they see fit. Advertising that you can lease a 2016 Ford Focus for $160 a month doesn't get Ford or the dealerships in any trouble when the lease price is changed to $200 a month 6 months after the advertisement was aired.

 

Thats not exactly how this sort of thing works. Common law, for lack of a better term, would essentially view charging for mods in an already released game as a price increase after the fact which is very difficult to not get sued over. Unless of course you have the lobbying power of all major cable and utility companies combined which I dont think beth does.

 

Heck even if a court doesn't see it as a price increase beth would still likely be ordered to offer refunds for a period of time after doing this which would be no bueno. At least provided someone sued over it.

 

Taking your example, yes the leasing company would get in trouble if they did this on a fixed leasing rate or failed to get the customer to sign an agreement which specified the rate could be variable. None of this applies to video games anyway tbh.

 

You are making things up on the fly. The game was not sold with a guarantee that all mods will be always free. You just try to imagine a law because you are angry someone might make money with mods and you are not getting a cut.

[Alexotero1219]

 

Thats not exactly how this sort of thing works. Common law, for lack of a better term, would essentially view charging for mods in an already released game as a price increase after the fact which is very difficult to not get sued over. Unless of course you have the lobbying power of all major cable and utility companies combined which I dont think beth does.

 

Heck even if a court doesn't see it as a price increase beth would still likely be ordered to offer refunds for a period of time after doing this which would be no bueno. At least provided someone sued over it.

 

Taking your example, yes the leasing company would get in trouble if they did this on a fixed leasing rate or failed to get the customer to sign an agreement which specified the rate could be variable. None of this applies to video games anyway tbh.

Paid mods would not be a "price increase" because no one is being forced to buy them and they are not a requirement to successfully play Fallout 4. Furthermore, companies are allowed to modify prices on products as they see fit. Bethesda could raise the price of Fallout 4 to $200 tomorrow and, while no one would buy it, it would be perfectly legal. I honestly don't know where you are getting the idea that price increases / changes are somehow illegal.

 

Just because no one is being forced to buy them doesnt mean beth can clearly market modding as free aspect to the game (they clearly shilled in game modding browsing and awesome mod potential at their E3 press conference) knowing full well their consumers expect it to be free and then change this. I personally find it hard to believe a court would look favorably on bethesda clearly cashing in on the expectation of free mods only to change this under the nose of the consumer.

 

It should be obvious to anyone at this point that bethesda's sales for FO4 would have taken a significant dive had they advertised paid for mods at the e3 press conference. Sure many might still buy the game because they like bethesda games but many also wouldn't have purchased it since free modding has kind of become a staple of the franchise. Courts look at all of these things when they evaluate complaints and it would be clear to any outside observer that bethesda could easily rely on the expectation of free modding for greater sales and bethesda knows this.

[Alexotero1219]

They also raised the price of the Season Pass. Prices are not set in stone.

yes they also warned people before hand.... and didnt increase the price for people who had already purchased it.

[Reneer]

Just because no one is being forced to buy them doesnt mean beth can clearly market modding as free aspect to the game (they clearly shilled in game modding browsing and awesome mod potential at their E3 press conference) knowing full well their consumers expect it to be free and then change this. I personally find it hard to believe a court would look favorably on bethesda clearly cashing in on the expectation of free mods only to change this under the nose of the consumer.Â

Â

It should be obvious to anyone at this point that bethesda's sales for FO4 would have taken a significant dive had they advertised paid for mods at the e3 press conference. Sure many might still buy the game because they like bethesda games but many also wouldn't have purchased it since free modding has kind of become a staple of the franchise. Courts look at all of these things when they evaluate complaints and it would be clear to any outside observer that bethesda could easily rely on the expectation of free modding for greater sales and bethesda knows this.

The courts would not get involved if Bethesda decided to create a paid mods system because Bethesda creating a paid mods system is perfectly legal. People can try and sue Bethesda over creating a paid mods system, but no court would hear the case because Bethesda isn't breaking any laws by creating a paid mods system. Edited August 19, 2016 by Reneer

[Arthmoor]

 

They also raised the price of the Season Pass. Prices are not set in stone.

yes they also warned people before hand.... and didnt increase the price for people who had already purchased it.

 

And this would be exactly the same logic used when paid mods return. They'll announce the availability of them, and make it crystal clear they're optional, and that nobody has to pay for the ones they already have.

 

You just made our point about how these things actually work.

[paulatreides0]

 

Thats not exactly how this sort of thing works. Common law, for lack of a better term, would essentially view charging for mods in an already released game as a price increase after the fact which is very difficult to not get sued over. Unless of course you have the lobbying power of all major cable and utility companies combined which I dont think beth does.

 

 

Heck even if a court doesn't see it as a price increase beth would still likely be ordered to offer refunds for a period of time after doing this which would be no bueno. At least provided someone sued over it.

 

Taking your example, yes the leasing company would get in trouble if they did this on a fixed leasing rate or failed to get the customer to sign an agreement which specified the rate could be variable. None of this applies to video games anyway tbh.

 

 

 

 

Just because no one is being forced to buy them doesnt mean beth can clearly market modding as free aspect to the game (they clearly shilled in game modding browsing and awesome mod potential at their E3 press conference) knowing full well their consumers expect it to be free and then change this. I personally find it hard to believe a court would look favorably on bethesda clearly cashing in on the expectation of free mods only to change this under the nose of the consumer.

 

 

It should be obvious to anyone at this point that bethesda's sales for FO4 would have taken a significant dive had they advertised paid for mods at the e3 press conference. Sure many might still buy the game because they like bethesda games but many also wouldn't have purchased it since free modding has kind of become a staple of the franchise. Courts look at all of these things when they evaluate complaints and it would be clear to any outside observer that bethesda could easily rely on the expectation of free modding for greater sales and bethesda knows this.

 

 

 

What you just said is completely false.

 

Changing the price of your product or charging for portions of your product that were previously free (or available at any price) has never been, and will probably never be (and thank god for that) illegal under any legal system on the planet. What is illegal is changing the price of a service in violation of some previous agreement. In other words - a company can't promise you electricity at $10/month at a locked rate and then change it, but unless they explicitly stated that the rate was locked, they could change it anytime they please to whatever they please.

 

Other than that it is, of course, illegal to charge someone retroactively (e.g. selling a product for $5 and then coming back and demanding that you pay another $45 on top of that for the product).

 

But paid modding would be neither of the above and in violation of no law anywhere. If you want to state that it *is* a violation of the above, please provide the exact portion of the EULA or any other legally binding document where Bethesda agrees to provide this service for free indefinitely.

Edited August 20, 2016 by paulatreides0