Poll: Should Modders be allowed to charge for their mods / maps?

[somonels]

No. Modders should use it as a proof of concept to find some financial backing and go indie.

What if they don't want to make indie games and would rather make maps and mods for games and make money off of that?

Aside from publishers not going to let them, at least not for free. They could try and join a published developer if they wanted to. Not everyone works on new games there. Obsidian entertainment does what modders do, for the most part.
I'd like to clarify that I was thinking of total conversions or heavy modding in my previous post, that's where modding begins and ends for me.

 

[byte4554_v1legacy]

No. Unless you design your own models, levels, materials, sounds, etc, it should be free. it's a little hazy when it comes to using only the engine, such as source, but all other content is original.

 

[LordOmnit]

But it all boils down to what a "mod" is and what a "game" is. Garry's Mod is a mod. Zero Clash could be considered a mod since it uses the Source Engine, but it's a game. Nehrim is a mod for Oblivion, but it's like a whole new game. Fallout: New Vegas runs looks like Fallout 3, plays like Fallout 3 and uses the same engine as Fallout 3, but it's a whole new game, yet it could very well be a mod.

This is grasping at semantics a little too much I feel. I don't know much about Zero Clash or Nehrim, but Fallout: New Vegas was developed with/by the developers of Fallout 3, was it not? If they release it, they release it in a way they feel appropriate, which is my original premise.

That's why I think charging for a mod should depend on quality and length. If a mod gives you over 6 hours of quality, first-class gameplay without using any material from the original game, then why not charge for it?

Someone else has already said this, but if someone charges without the developer's approval/partnership then they are just asking to be thrown to the lawyer-jackals no matter how well done their mod is. What someone is willing to pay for and what someone can charge for are two entirely separate things.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No for starters it is one of the only things that allows the mod community to function as if they were making money of it devs would shut them down and not implement the mods. The only thing that is going to get them money is the devs selling it Valve style or ADfly and I have no problem with ads.

The biggest problem with this is and it is the same problem with DLC is that it will never come down in price the way it should and is over priced to begin with. Do you really think money is an issue with mods? A lot of people do them for fun/love of the game not for $$$/£££/???.

 

[Oisin XD]

Go ahead. Try and sell it. See if people will buy it. It's a free market.

Except it's not a free market, because you'd get sued up the arse.

 

[MrCollins]

If they did they would have to have an agreement with the original games publisher.

 

[teebeeohh]

if they want to they can, i won't be getting any of those mods though.

 

[instantbenz]

If it's for the love of modding and/or the game then they shouldn't want it. Just the feeling of accomplishment and whatnot.

Take LBP2's level creator. If you factor in the time spent on some of those, yeah a lot of time was invested and that investment should be worth something. The payoff is that people fave your level and you get some awards and feel warm and happy inside when your level gets good revs.

Is the warm and happy not enough people!?

 

[fulano]

It would depend on the legal agreement between the provider of the IP and the user (the modder in question). I predict that this will become more of an issue in the future when people like Activision, Valve, and others are vying for more and more social input from their user base. Awarding cash prices would be a good extension of the service and would galvanize more users to a particular platform.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

The reason I like modders so much is because they aren't doing this for money, they're doing it for us, and for the game. Wave money in their faces and that all changes.

 

[Qitz]

The reason I like modders so much is because they aren't doing this for money, they're doing it for us, and for the game. Wave money in their faces and that all changes.

Sure it'll change but it can't all be negative, like I said, with the option to get a source of income the quality of the mods would increase due to wanting to give users "the most bang for their buck." Or just a simpler "I want to get tons of cash."

I also don't see how wanting money for something you do means you aren't doing it "for us, and for the game" or new accounts on Youtube with either Lets Play or just general content wouldn't be popping up all the time. I know you can get money from ads on Youtube but I'm fairly sure you have to be a partner and that's all up to youtube when they want you to be.

 

[Who Dares Wins]

It's illegal to do it, since you're not actually creating something, only modifying the existing product, so of course they shouldn't charge for it. If the modder is SO good, then he should probably be hired by a/the developer.

 

[oktalist]

First off, the question was not "should modders charge for their mods," it was "should modders be allowed to charge for their mods." So anyone who answers "no because they would get sued" has misunderstood the question.

I think it'd be fair ... on the condition that they split the money with the actual game developers ... In almost all cases that'd be a roughly 5%/95% split in favour of the developer

... they should be sold through the developer. It's only fair that the devs get a cut

At best, there should be some sort of royalties system.

But a mod requires the player to have already bought the original game from a retailer. So if the game costs $50 and the mod costs $2.50, the game developer has already got their 95% royalty.

Mods are developments based on someone else's intellectual property. The mod community is largely protected by it being not-for-profit, the same way someone could technically go after Star Trek fanfic but Paramount (or whoever) generally doesn't because it's distributed not as a paid work.

It hits an iffy legal area when they use models and textures that aren't their own if they straight up charge for it. If they use completely original models and such though? Go nuts.

Of course if the modder distributes some of the game's original textures or models with their mod, that is straightforward breach of copyright. But there is no reason for them to do that, as all their players will already have all of the game's original textures and models on their computer.

Intellectual property doesn't actually mean anything specific in a legal sense. It's an umbrella term that covers copyright, trademarks and patents. If the mod had a storyline taking place in an existing fictional world, like that of Half-Life for example, then it would probably be in breach of Valve's trademarks, just like Trek fanfic is technically a breach of Paramount's trademarks. If the mod used even a single headcrab, it might be argued that it breaches trademarks, but just using some sand/brick/water/etc. textures I don't see how that could be a breach of trademark.

It'd be interesting to know if there's any case law on this. I've never understood why they shouldn't be allowed to. It's probably just covered by the games' EULAs.

Disclaimer:
Of course the question of whether modders should be allowed to charge for their mods is very different from the question of whether it would be a good idea for them to do so. Lots of people have said it could cause developers to crack down on the modding scene, and that modders do it for the cred, for their love of the game in question and for the community, and I agree with all of that.

And it's becoming a moot point anyway, as there are now enough royalty-free textures, models, sounds, music and free engines and tools for people to make a standalone game with just the same effort that it takes to make an equivalent mod.

 

[Something Amyss]

But a mod requires the player to have already bought the original game from a retailer. So if the game costs $50 and the mod costs $2.50, the game developer has already got their 95% royalty.

So what?

You're rationalising the number being insignificant, not why it's actually a correct thing to do. Sure, they bought the game. that doesn't mean that they own all associated content and the rights holder has no right to further distribution for profit.

Intellectual property doesn't actually mean anything specific in a legal sense. It's an umbrella term that covers copyright, trademarks and patents.

And I am using it as a blanket term. I'm sorry, I thought the obvious contextual markers would help you out there.

If the mod had a storyline taking place in an existing fictional world, like that of Half-Life for example, then it would probably be in breach of Valve's trademarks, just like Trek fanfic is technically a breach of Paramount's trademarks. If the mod used even a single headcrab, it might be argued that it breaches trademarks, but just using some sand/brick/water/etc. textures I don't see how that could be a breach of trademark.

Firstly, it's not "technically" a violation of their trademark, it is. And if you do want to get into the "is it a good idea" area, you should probably consider that paid mods could very well lead to the cracking down on free mods, and the same goes for other media. A lot of fan work, even if it's otherwise home made, is at the mercy of the rights holders. I'm sorry, but unless there is an opt-out that specifically allows creation and distribution of mods in a game, you're already at the mercy of the parent corporation. This ties to the original topic and the potential side topic of "is it wise?" Most companies don't think it's worth going after a free mod. Same way it's really not worth chasing down every fanfic.

But "they aren't suing us" doesn't translate into "it's our right to do it." They could, reaily, because it's use of their trademarks.

A mod impacts intellectual property, though, even if it does not contain a single image or mention the name. Code is protected. This has been established, and one of the grounds upon which Sony was suing Geohot. Geohot's big defense relied mostly around the fact that he was jailbreaking the PS3, which has been considered to fall under various exceptions to both copyright and the DMCA.

In the case of games with modding tools, I'd be shocked if they didn't include a noncommercial use statement right in the EULA.

If you want to make mods for a company, try working with or for them. otherwise, don't try and make money off them.

 

[Bad Jim]

A mod impacts intellectual property, though, even if it does not contain a single image or mention the name. Code is protected. This has been established, and one of the grounds upon which Sony was suing Geohot. Geohot's big defense relied mostly around the fact that he was jailbreaking the PS3, which has been considered to fall under various exceptions to both copyright and the DMCA.

There is a difference between jailbreaking and modding. Jailbreaking involves circumventing DRM, which can violate the DMCA. Modding does not circumvent DRM, and many games are even designed to be easily moddable.

There really isn't any moral problem with modding regardless of whether you charge. The publisher of the base game has already been paid for their contribution. If a mod is wildly popular, the base game will be that much more popular and will sell extra copies. No-one is forcing players to pay for overpriced content either.

This attitude you guys have is very wasteful. It forces every professional developer to work on building an AAA game from scratch. It would be more efficient if some worked on full games while others made interesting content within other games. Professional third party bugfixing would also be pretty cool.

 

[oktalist]

But a mod requires the player to have already bought the original game from a retailer. So if the game costs $50 and the mod costs $2.50, the game developer has already got their 95% royalty.

So what?

You're rationalising the number being insignificant, not why it's actually a correct thing to do. Sure, they bought the game. that doesn't mean that they own all associated content and the rights holder has no right to further distribution for profit.

The 95% thing was from what Azmadi said. It wasn't central to my point, which was that anyone playing the mod has already paid full price for any game content which it uses, so how can you justify them taking another cut just for letting those same people use the same content they've already paid for in a different way. Legally they can, obviously, but I'm not so sure about the moral case. Mods don't include any of the original game art - they reuse art which the players have already paid for.

It's like selling a design for a Lego starship. You're not selling the actual bricks, which your users must purchase for themselves from the Lego Group. You're just selling something for rearranging the bricks in a different way. Conceivably it would breach the Lego Group's trademarks, but nothing else. IANAL, but if you could do it in such a way that you don't breach the trademarks, then it seems to me that it would be legal. The only difference (admittedly a big difference) with games is the EULAs.

Intellectual property doesn't actually mean anything specific in a legal sense. It's an umbrella term that covers copyright, trademarks and patents.

And I am using it as a blanket term. I'm sorry, I thought the obvious contextual markers would help you out there.

I understand that, but I don't know which kind of IP you are talking about. Mods don't breach copyright and they don't necessarily breach trademarks in all cases.

And if you do want to get into the "is it a good idea" area, you should probably consider that paid mods could very well lead to the cracking down on free mods, and the same goes for other media.

I agree with you there, as you would know if you had read my post fully.

But "they aren't suing us" doesn't translate into "it's our right to do it."

Obviously. Never claimed it did.

They could, reaily, because it's use of their trademarks.

As I explained, a mod doesn't necessarily need to use a game's trademarks, although admittedly, many do.

Code is protected. This has been established, and one of the grounds upon which Sony was suing Geohot. Geohot's big defense relied mostly around the fact that he was jailbreaking the PS3, which has been considered to fall under various exceptions to both copyright and the DMCA.

It's difficult to respond to such a vague statement. What do you mean, "code is protected"? I really don't see how the DMCA can apply to writing a game mod, as it is not circumventing an effective technological measure. Writing a game mod is very different from jailbreaking the PS3, as the latter involves cracking a cryptographic key, which is an "effective technological measure" as defined by the DMCA.

In the case of games with modding tools, I'd be shocked if they didn't include a noncommercial use statement right in the EULA.

I did mention EULAs. That appears to me to be the only thing stopping paid-for mods, apart from trademarks, which don't necessarily apply to all mods.

Just to make clear, again, I never said that I supported allowing modders to charge for their creations. I'm just trying to understand the legal position for the sake of learning knowledge.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Only with adfly or through donations. I personally wouldn't use adfly/ ask for donations if I had any coding talent, but I can understand why some modders would need to, i.e. if they were students had no other source of income.