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

[Lachdonin]

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.

 

In any normal industry, those who produce the tools also charge for those tools. This happens in one of two ways. Either an up-front cost, or a % based exchange for those tools based on their use and income. But the reaction would be just as catastrophic if Bethesda were to slap a $5.99 price tag on their modding suites.

 

The latter system is rather common in software, where a company pays for a contract use of software, in exchange for a particular portion of the revenue generated from the final product that said software uses.

 

I'm not saying that what Bethesda did was the right way to go about it. It wasn't The ratios were absolute garbage, the communication with the public was absolute garbage, and the legal side of things was a mess (and showed that Bethesda fundamentally misunderstood how commonly assets are shared by the community).

 

But that doesn't mean that Bethesda isn't in their rights to capitalise on others using their software to make money (which many modders do) or that there is no benefit to the consumer for implementing a more long-term financial model that decreases intro costs.

[Aragingmonk]

I just wanted to share the linked article and it reinforces what Dark0ne said in the Nexus news, paid mods will be tried again. If you are a nexus fan you know who that is and what I am talking about. If not, oh well. Anyways, I tried to play Skyrim on an old Xbox 360 that one of my kids have. It was about a year ago and I was waiting for amazon to send my PC parts. Being a hardcore fan I thought to give it a go. Lasted 5 minutes tops, that is how good a job Bethesda had done. I could not play my favorite game because it sucked that bad.

 

Tell me again what Bethesda has done to deserve modders money? Modders made the game playable, so Bethesda should be paying them.

[Lachdonin]

 

Tell me again what Bethesda has done to deserve modders money? Modders made the game playable, so Bethesda should be paying them.

 

Bethesda Game Studios makes s*** games. They always have. The closest thing they've made to a fully functional, let alone POLISHED game out of the box is Redguard. At this point anyone who buys one of their games should recognise what they're paying for at the onset.

 

Without Bethesda, though, those Modders would have nothing to MAKE playable, nor would they have the tools to work with. Modders should have access to the right to charge for their work, and Bethesda should have access compensation for the use of THEIR work when it is used to make money. Both sides have every right to charge for their services. If someone wants to charge for a mod that they made, then they should be allowed to, but because they are using Bethesda's software, Bethesda is also entitled to a share. Whether that's by taking a % of the charge of the mod, or by charging a cost to access the modding tools, the point is the same. If people are making money off Bethesda's work, then Bethesda has every right to compensation. There's a reason you aren't allowed to arrange public viewings of films without a license.

 

But that relationship alone leaves the consumer totally out of the loop, which is it's self a problem. But that's a problem that we have already seen solved through the use of low-cost of even free games that rely on micro-transaction models for income. Games like Team Fortress, Heathstone and Smite make huge amounts of money while being entirely free to play, because they allow players to choose what they want to spend their money on, and how much. Don't want a character in Heroes of the Storm? Don't buy it. You're not paying $60 for 30+ characters when you're only ever going to play one.

 

 

If you are a nexus fan

 

I am a fan of the Nexus in so far as it's served as a great place to share mods for games over the years, but let's be clear. I, frankly, don't care about the Nexus' longevity, it's owners, it's mission or its philosophy. I care about Modders having the freedom to set their own terms for their work, i care about developers being compensated for others using their property to make money, and i care about consumers not being shafted in the process of letting others make money. If accomplishing all three kills the Nexus (i highly doubt it would) then it's a noble sacrifice.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Lachdonin

[Sonja]

I'm not exactly flushed with cash, but when I'm able, I hit the Donate button. I'd far rather directly give money to the people who have fixed and improved Skyrim in ways that Bethesda was too lazy and incompetent to manage. Honestly... I find it absolutely heinous that Bethesda wanted (and, apparently, still wants) the lion's share of those proceeds. The "we made the game" line is NOT a valid justification, and the entire endeavour screams of greed.

Essentially Bethesda wants to eat their cake and have it too, by getting somebody else to fix their mistakes while simultaneously raking in more profits. Honestly, people like Pete Hines could really learn something from CD Projekt Red.

 

My suspicion is that they'll attempt to introduce paid modding once SSE is off the ground, while hoping that modders will stop updating their work for the original game. And, if that is the case, it gives me even more reason to be largely unenthused about SSE.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Sonja

[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.

 

In any normal industry, those who produce the tools also charge for those tools. This happens in one of two ways. Either an up-front cost, or a % based exchange for those tools based on their use and income. But the reaction would be just as catastrophic if Bethesda were to slap a $5.99 price tag on their modding suites.

 

The latter system is rather common in software, where a company pays for a contract use of software, in exchange for a particular portion of the revenue generated from the final product that said software uses.

 

I'm not saying that what Bethesda did was the right way to go about it. It wasn't The ratios were absolute garbage, the communication with the public was absolute garbage, and the legal side of things was a mess (and showed that Bethesda fundamentally misunderstood how commonly assets are shared by the community).

 

But that doesn't mean that Bethesda isn't in their rights to capitalise on others using their software to make money (which many modders do) or that there is no benefit to the consumer for implementing a more long-term financial model that decreases intro costs.

 

 

That's a big claim to make, that charging $5 for a mod toolkit would mean there would be no modders. Would you care to cite sources which would confirm that market research?

 

Even the slowest person can do enough basic math to figure out that if they're charging $1 or $3 or $5 or whatever per mod download and you have a system in place where the publisher is going to get any significant percentage of that money, that that's going to add up to a lot more than $5, really fast. I think given a choice between giving Beth a percentage of the take and giving Beth $5, almost anyone will opt to just pay the $5 for the tools.

 

Publishers don't provide free modding tools right now out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it's a cheap investment with good returns. This is about the incentives. Companies want mods to be encouraged because it increases profits for them (through longer game lives = more sales), sometimes this means you give things away because the profit comes back to you in the end, downstream. Modders want to easily create mods because it makes the game more fun for everyone. When you start charging for mods, you're implementing a trade-off where you encourage modders but discourage players. Now, you can argue all day about whether that's a good tradeoff or not, but if you have a system where a big chunk of the profit from paid mods goes to the publisher, then NOBODY wins. The modders who're supposed to benefit, don't, players have to pay, and the publisher has disincentivized both the players and modders from having anything to do with their game.

 

The problem comes from publishers being greedy, trying to get a cut of the action both upstream (through a cut of paid mods) and downstream (more long-term game sales). As long as people can choose to go play other games, that's just not going to work.

[LeddBate]

 

...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.

 

 

I'm not exactly flushed with cash, but when I'm able, I hit the Donate button. I'd far rather directly give money to the people who have fixed and improved Skyrim <snip>

 

Probably the two most poignant points in this thread (in my opinion.)

 

Modding extends life of game. Probably a huge part of the reason we have Skyrim is because of all the interest in Oblivion introduced by modders over the years.

 

Donating directly to mod authors. Even if it's just a buck or two, I'm sure they really appreciate it. And it is (sort of) an after-the-fact type of crowdfunding that helps promote more modding.

[CiderMuffin]

Oh this article again, both Todd Howard and Peter Hines said that paid modding is not coming back. Stop with the fear mongering. Edited October 31, 2016 by CiderMuffin

[cowgirl1776]

I loved the idea of paid mods. I would happily pay for mods, but I would also expect certain things. Maybe a lite/temporary version to see if I like it, supporting any issues that I had with it, and some price/quality control. I think the problem was that Bethesda never consulted anyone about how to implement them. They sort of just announced paid mods and threw their hands up in the air. The result was a flood of really low-quality stuff being made for $5 that drowned out some pretty nice stuff being sold at a reasonable price. To my understanding, the modders also received such a small fraction of the cut that it almost defeated the purpose.

 

I've never made a mod, though, at least not for anyone except myself, so take my two cents for what it's worth.

Edited November 5, 2016 by cowgirl1776

[TeofaTsavo]

I have no issue with paid Mods, as long as they are curated, clean, and essentially standalone types that have no conflicts. High Quality armor, weapons, etc with no dependencies. Paid Mods similar to those in MMOs that absolutely cannot effect gameplay mechanics or quests. We have a mod community for those that is far more flexible to niche issues. "hey, I have a conflict with Bills Bounty of Beet Harvesting" "NP, can fix".

 

We also have the Author's ability to say, I can't, won't, I'm not here, Sorry.. and as the mod is a gift to the community, NO ONE should complain.

 

Paid mods, complaints become legitimate and NEED to be addressed. Maintaining a Paid mod is part of why you got paid. Paid mods alter the user/creator dynamic.

 

For example, I would pay for a mod that brought in New standalone mounts with new meshes, animations and high quality textures.. with a choice of Resolutions.

 

I would NOT pay for a mod that used other authors textures, needed FNIS, destroyed Convenient Horses, and broke Frost. If I had paid for it, I would be livid.

 

I would be very annoyed to pay for a game changer mod and find that it destroys older, better, Stable mods with conflicts that may or may not be patched dependent on Mod Author activity.

 

Paid mods will have to be more vanilla generic in reqs, more standalone, and more polished. And original.

 

I confess, it is sad and silly that I will pay 25 rl dollars to buy phony money for a game like SWToR or GW2 and blow it all, happily, for silly cosmetic Fluff mods that really change nothing (but break nothing). But.. they sell and I enjoy appearance fluff.

 

I am sad and guilty that I don't pay more to our volunteer Creators. I don't do online credit exchanges or own a Credit Card :sad:. I buy retail game and Steam cards. It bugs me a lot.

Edited November 5, 2016 by TeofaTsavo

[nilok]

If the paid mods came with some kind of "Fool Proof" app to install them for you without a hitch I would not mind paying for that.