"Bethesda Plans To Revisit Skyrim Paid Mods After Fallout 4"

[Aragingmonk]

I just saw this and thought I would share. It is an older release but probably coming with Beth.net crap.

 

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/bethesda-plans-revisit-skyrim-paid-mods-after-fallout-4-459131

Edited October 27, 2016 by Aragingmonk

[Lachdonin]

There's nothing inherently wrong with paid mods. What was wrong was how it was implemented, how it benefited (or did not benefit) the consumer, and how the product liability was set up. There's a hell of a lot of good that could come from Paid Mods, if it's handled properly.

 

Do i expect it to be handled properly? Not really. But given Bethesda's new blanket ban on early media copies, I'm starting to doubt their (the publisher, not Bethesda Game Studios) ability to handle anything properly.

[Aragingmonk]

There's nothing inherently wrong with paid mods. What was wrong was how it was implemented, how it benefited (or did not benefit) the consumer, and how the product liability was set up. There's a hell of a lot of good that could come from Paid Mods, if it's handled properly.

 

Do i expect it to be handled properly? Not really. But given Bethesda's new blanket ban on early media copies, I'm starting to doubt their (the publisher, not Bethesda Game Studios) ability to handle anything properly.

Bethesda will want the lions share of the money and for what? Did they produce the mod? They got paid for the part they did, create the game. Most of the mods rely on sources not in the original game like hair, skin, textures, even scripts. I think the donate button should be stressed but that is it.

 

My major concern as I download SE was what kind of agreement will you have to accept for the creation kit? Will they take control that way? Have you forfeit your rights or something.

[Arthmoor]

It's also a year old article that's pure speculation.

 

Not that I'd mind there being paid mods obviously, but I think it's a bit silly to speculate about it when they've actually said nothing at all on the subject since April 2015.

[PeterMartyr]

Why are the loudest always Doom & Gloom, think they need to go nearest street corner with this sign around their necks "The End Is Nigh." Oh don't forget to grow your beard too.

[Aragingmonk]

Why are the loudest always Doom & Gloom, think they need to go nearest street corner with this sign around their necks "The End Is Nigh." Oh don't forget to grow your beard too.

"Loudest, Doom and Gloom"? Bit of a drama queen are we? I posted an article I read where Hines states he will give it another go and that he expects to get paid. Not my words but his and it was stated after the outrage from the first time. Coals were still burning and such.

 

Someone is going to pay for the mod servers at Beth net.........

[Lachdonin]

 

Bethesda will want the lions share of the money and for what? Did they produce the mod? They got paid for the part they did, create the game. Most of the mods rely on sources not in the original game like hair, skin, textures, even scripts. I think the donate button should be stressed but that is it.

 

And i disagree. Bethesda created the platform and the tools with which the mods are made (for the most part, anyway. People often use 3rd party tools as well, but it inevitably goes through the tool-set that Bethesda created and gave access to). We are using THEIR tools and THEIR engine, to create content, and then emphasising a donation system that totally cuts out Bethesda from the revenue generated from that. In the actual gaming industry, if another company were to do something similar, they would be sued, and sued hard (look at Silicon Knights unauthorised use of the Unreal 3 engine as an example). If there is money to be made, Bethesda has every right to want in on it.

 

But, modding also dramatically increases the relative lifespan of a game. Look at Skyrim as a prime example. Skyrim is STILL one of the top 10 active games on Steam, 5 years after it came out. Games many have praised as being vastly superior, such as Dark Souls 3 and The Witcher 3, don't even make the cut, despite being considerably more recent (funny enough, Fallout 4 is also in the top 10). The primary reason behind this is the modding community constantly producing content, and increasing the relative interest and use of the game.

 

But what does that mean? It means that Bethesda's games, typically, are played longer and maintain interest longer than their competition, because of their open modability. And because the general interest in the game persists for longer, it allows for a much longer revenue window. They don't have to recoup the cost or make huge bank right out of the gate, they can draw that financial success out over several years, even up to a decade, because modding maintains interest throughout that period.

 

What does this mean? Because they can more reliably make money over the long term, they aren't as beholden to a higher entrance cost. If the community were smart (which, the Paid Modding discussions show they aren't) or Bethesda had decent PR people (which, based on the media blackout, they don't) a system for paid modding could easily facilitate lower game costs for us, and higher total profis for Bethesda.

We've seen this sort of 'Pay for what you want' model be hugely successful with free-to-play games, except in this case you're looking at also funnelling money into the community to drive that content creation.

 

Would i tolerate paying $3.99 for a Quest Mod if i only payed $30 for the base game? Absof*#@inglutely. Even if, by the end of it, i'd spent $200 over 10 years of playing a game. The developer gets more money, the Modder gets reliable returns on their work (and isn't beholden to charity. Really, relying on charity is a terrible economic system) and the consumer only has to pay for what they want.

 

But, the knee-jerk and overwhelmingly hostile reaction to a poorly executed and poorly communicated attempt at paid modding has probably killed the idea entirely, meaning that no one, especially the consumer, gets any benefits from it what so ever.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Lachdonin

[Aragingmonk]

 

 

Bethesda will want the lions share of the money and for what? Did they produce the mod? They got paid for the part they did, create the game. Most of the mods rely on sources not in the original game like hair, skin, textures, even scripts. I think the donate button should be stressed but that is it.

 

And i disagree. Bethesda created the platform and the tools with which the mods are made (for the most part, anyway. People often use 3rd party tools as well, but it inevitably goes through the tool-set that Bethesda created and gave access to). We are using THEIR tools and THEIR engine, to create content, and then emphasising a donation system that totally cuts out Bethesda from the revenue generated from that. In the actual gaming industry, if another company were to do something similar, they would be sued, and sued hard (look at Silicon Knights unauthorised use of the Unreal 3 engine as an example). If there is money to be made, Bethesda has every right to want in on it.

 

But, modding also dramatically increases the relative lifespan of a game. Look at Skyrim as a prime example. Skyrim is STILL one of the top 10 active games on Steam, 5 years after it came out. Games many have praised as being vastly superior, such as Dark Souls 3 and The Witcher 3, don't even make the cut, despite being considerably more recent (funny enough, Fallout 4 is also in the top 10). The primary reason behind this is the modding community constantly producing content, and increasing the relative interest and use of the game.

 

But what does that mean? It means that Bethesda's games, typically, are played longer and maintain interest longer than their competition, because of their open modability. And because the general interest in the game persists for longer, it allows for a much longer revenue window. They don't have to recoup the cost or make huge bank right out of the gate, they can draw that financial success out over several years, even up to a decade, because modding maintains interest throughout that period.

 

What does this mean? Because they can more reliably make money over the long term, they aren't as beholden to a higher entrance cost. If the community were smart (which, the Paid Modding discussions show they aren't) or Bethesda had decent PR people (which, based on the media blackout, they don't) a system for paid modding could easily facilitate lower game costs for us, and higher total profis for Bethesda.

We've seen this sort of 'Pay for what you want' model be hugely successful with free-to-play games, except in this case you're looking at also funnelling money into the community to drive that content creation.

 

Would i tolerate paying $3.99 for a Quest Mod if i only payed $30 for the base game? Absof*#@inglutely. Even if, by the end of it, i'd spent $200 over 10 years of playing a game. The developer gets more money, the Modder gets reliable returns on their work (and isn't beholden to charity. Really, relying on charity is a terrible economic system) and the consumer only has to pay for what they want.

 

But, the knee-jerk and overwhelmingly hostile reaction to a poorly executed and poorly communicated attempt at paid modding has probably killed the idea entirely, meaning that no one, especially the consumer, gets any benefits from it what so ever.

 

While I can see some of your points I will add some. Bethesda games are full of bugs and not known for graphics. Modders fix the games and extend the life but only because it so long for them to release a new version. Modders keep Bethesda relevant in all honesty. Modders are the best marketing tool they have and want to capitalize on it twice is absurd. They want to sit on their ass, splatter there name on Arkane Studios work, try to take part in ID software accomplishments and produce a half ass game that requires unofficial patches to run correctly. Skyrim SE will probably be the last game from Bethesda I play. ESO was an attempt to make money off the name while charging to play it (didn't work). Now wanting money for mods they did not make. Want money, go to work and make games. That is your part time profession. lol

[Lachdonin]

You're clearly confusing Bethesda (the publisher) and Bethesda Game Studios (the people who make Fallout and The Elder Scrolls. BGS has absolutely nothing to do with Arkane's, ID's or Zenimax Online's work, and while Bethesda is the deciding influence when it comes to marketing decisions, it's in the exact same vein as Ubisoft, Activision and EA. They're a publisher, not the one making the games.

 

 

 

Modders keep Bethesda relevant in all honesty.

 

They absolutely do. And that's the whole point. By creating an environment with lower intro-costs, that rewards those who keep the games going while at the same time still generating income for the people who actually made the game, you inherently foster greater reward for a larger number of people.

 

 

 

Want money, go to work and make games.

 

So, making the engine doesn't matter? Somebody better tell Crytech that they shouldn't be charging people to use their property.

[SmedleyDButler]

Just want to point out that in any normal industry, the tools are a much lesser expense than the labour, unless you're doing crazy things involving heavy machinery which do not really apply to a video game's modding suite.

 

If I have some tools anyone can borrow, and someone comes and fixes my car or adds a modification using those tools, that doesn't mean they should be working on my car for free.

 

Bethesda benefits from additional sales of a game which has it's life dramatically extended. This is why modding toolsets get created - because they're a relatively cheap investment which gives the game a bigger and much longer appeal. You can perhaps argue that a publisher could or even should charge for the modding tools, but to say that just because they provided the tools, that they should reap a huge share of the revenue from use of those tools is destructive.

 

Trying to have it both ways by milking both modders and players will only kill the publisher's golden goose.