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

[steve40]

Never happen. "We will never allow paid mods again" wouldn't even cross the threshold of importance. Any lawyer who took the case on your behalf would only be in it to bleed you dry of funds because they already know they can't win that. All Bethesda would have to do is say "we changed our minds and it's a thing now" and there you go.

 

Besides, I don't recall ever seeing Hines put out a blanket statement saying they'd never do it again. Just statements that can be construed as "not right now".

Ya, it's not like Fallout 4 had a statement on the packaging saying "comes with bonus free mods that you can download from Beth.rot". And even if it did, as long as SOME mods were available for free, then Bethesda is off the hook.

Edited August 11, 2016 by steve40

[Alexotero1219]

 

Reneer man...... In business you are supposed to argue for a LARGER cut for yourself. Not scramble to find reasons that you should get a smaller cut lol. It actually is rather weird seeing some people do this.

I'm only arguing the point that a 25/75 split is reasonable. I'd love for a 50/50 split, but that's a pipe dream, especially when dealing with a company like Bethesda / Zenimax. I'd rather a 25/75 split than nothing at all. And if people keep pressing Bethesda / Zenimax for a higher percentage they just might toss the whole idea permanently.

 

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.

[Alexotero1219]

 

 

Technically speaking, when Pete Hines said they would never paid mods again, if that was published(and it was tweet I believe), then reintroducing paid modding is...here's the payoff, his original statement would then be a false statement, which Bethesda/ZeniMax could then be sued for in a court of law.

I love it when people make up laws.

 

Sorry, I meant to say that would fall under the Consumer Protection Act...which I do believe covers false statements by Companies, of course you'd have to file complaints with the Consumer Protection Agency proving how it goes against the Consumer Protection Act, and it is POSSIBLE, but NOT very likely to work. There, does that sound better now.

 

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.

[Reneer]

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.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Reneer

[MasterMagnus]

Again I say, the real world example of 60% 40% is better from the 'leverage' perspective and better from the 'being a real world example' perspective too (as opposed to being a theory based on college studies). Just sayin'

[Reneer]

Again I say, the real world example of 60% 40% is better from the 'leverage' perspective and better from the 'being a real world example' perspective too (as opposed to being a theory based on college studies).

Just sayin'

There are plenty of other real world examples that are nowhere near a 40/60 split. Simply because we can come up with counterpoint examples means little in the eyes of Bethesda / Zenimax, especially when you consider they already set precedent during the first round of paid mods. No "theory" here. Edited August 13, 2016 by Reneer

[Arthmoor]

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

He's being realistic and reasonable with his expectations, that's what :tongue:

[RS13]

 

Technically speaking, when Pete Hines said they would never paid mods again, if that was published(and it was tweet I believe), then reintroducing paid modding is...here's the payoff, his original statement would then be a false statement, which Bethesda/ZeniMax could then be sued for in a court of law.

I love it when people make up laws.

 

 

 

Well, technically speaking you can be sued for anything. A lawsuit is just a compliant. File the paperwork and boom! lawsuit. It's just that to *win* you need to show that you've suffered some kind of unjust loss. (And with especially frivolous lawsuits, you not only lose, but you can wind up paying the defendant's legal fees.)

 

 

Sorry, I meant to say that would fall under the Consumer Protection Act...which I do believe covers false statements by Companies, of course you'd have to file complaints with the Consumer Protection Agency proving how it goes against the Consumer Protection Act, and it is POSSIBLE, but NOT very likely to work. ÃÃÂ There, does that sound better now.

Except it wouldn't. State Consumer Protection Acts only cover false advertising. Even if Pete Hines had said "we will never do paid mods again, ever" (which he most certainly didn't), that doesn't mean anything in terms of someone filing a complaint against Bethesda. Companies change their products and what services they do / do not offer all the time - it is the company's right to do so as part of their business. You don't get to (successfully) sue a company or file a complaint for doing something that is perfectly legal.

 

 

Pretty much. Also, when you compare other things like the trailer for Watchdogs or Casey Hudson's claim that ME3 wouldn't have an A, B or C ending... it's incredibly hard to see how *this* would be the thing that constitutes false advertising. Whatever you think about those two examples, they were at least designed to sell games and had to do with actual gameplay *features* rather than policies for adding additional features.

Edited August 13, 2016 by RS13

[lelcat]

 

Never happen. "We will never allow paid mods again" wouldn't even cross the threshold of importance. Any lawyer who took the case on your behalf would only be in it to bleed you dry of funds because they already know they can't win that. All Bethesda would have to do is say "we changed our minds and it's a thing now" and there you go.

 

Besides, I don't recall ever seeing Hines put out a blanket statement saying they'd never do it again. Just statements that can be construed as "not right now".

Ya, it's not like Fallout 4 had a statement on the packaging saying "comes with bonus free mods that you can download from Beth.rot". And even if it did, as long as SOME mods were available for free, then Bethesda is off the hook.

 

25% is better than 0%

[paulatreides0]

 

 

Never happen. "We will never allow paid mods again" wouldn't even cross the threshold of importance. Any lawyer who took the case on your behalf would only be in it to bleed you dry of funds because they already know they can't win that. All Bethesda would have to do is say "we changed our minds and it's a thing now" and there you go.

 

Besides, I don't recall ever seeing Hines put out a blanket statement saying they'd never do it again. Just statements that can be construed as "not right now".

Ya, it's not like Fallout 4 had a statement on the packaging saying "comes with bonus free mods that you can download from Beth.rot". And even if it did, as long as SOME mods were available for free, then Bethesda is off the hook.

 

25% is better than 0%

 

 

And, from experience, it's significantly easier to live on 25% than 0%.